dm_analyze

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It usefully reveals non-obvious staged behavior — the first call is a discovery call returning a rubric and candidate schema rather than scores, and scores only appear when candidates are supplied. It says nothing about side effects, whether it is read-only, cost/latency, or permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two terse sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the I/O contract. The pseudo-signature notation is compact and dense, though the bracket/pipe shorthand demands careful reading and borders on cryptic for an agent unfamiliar with this namespace.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description rightly focuses on the call protocol instead. Still, for a tool with a nested, untyped payload, key details are missing: permissible `kind` values, trace path semantics, and what a candidate must contain to be scored.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema is a single untyped `payload` object with additionalProperties: true, so the description must compensate entirely. It does sketch the field structure ({workflow:{kind, text|path}, [traces:{path}], [candidates]}) and marks optional fields, but never enumerates valid `kind` values, explains text-vs-path selection, or defines the `candidates` object shape.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Find decision points in a workflow.' That is clearly distinct in kind from the sibling family (register/decide/record/train), even though no sibling is named explicitly. The second sentence describes input shape and phased returns, which reinforces the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies a two-step usage pattern ('First call returns rubric + candidate_schema + hints; with candidates, returns score and verdict'), which tells the agent something about the call sequence. However, it never says when to use dm_analyze versus siblings like do_analyze, dm_plan_run, or dm_decide, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.