do_analyze

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the conditional return contract: first call yields rubric + candidate_schema + hints, subsequent calls with candidates yield score and verdict per candidate. It does not say whether the tool is read-only or persists anything server-side (the do_* family suggests state changes), leaving a meaningful gap.

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?

Three dense sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler; the pseudo-schema notation packs the payload contract compactly. The bracket/pipe notation is slightly cryptic on first read but earns its space.

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?

For a nested-payload tool with an output schema already present, the description covers the payload shape and the two-phase invocation well enough to call it correctly. Remaining ambiguity about enum-like values ('kind') and candidate formatting is minor but real.

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?

The schema is a single opaque 'payload' object with additionalProperties:true and 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate and does: it spells out the nested shape {workflow: {kind, text|path}, [traces: {path}], [candidates]} with optional fields bracketed. It stops short of enumerating valid 'kind' values or the candidate object format.

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 description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Find decision points in a workflow', which is far more informative than the opaque name do_analyze. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many similar siblings (dm_analyze, do_extract, do_decide), so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

It implicitly defines a two-step usage pattern (call first without candidates, then again with candidates), which is useful procedural context. But it never states when to choose this over dm_analyze or do_extract, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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