analyze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it explains the async nature of expert_panel (returns immediately, needs polling), the need for round completion for follow_up, and the meaning of actions like cancel. However, it does not explicitly state safety or side effects beyond mutation implied by 'cancel' and 'create'.

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?

The description is organized as a list of actions with parameters inline, front-loaded with the purpose. It is relatively concise given the complexity (8 sub-actions). Still, it could be shortened by separating parameter details into the schema.

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?

Given 16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main behaviors but lacks return value descriptions for most actions (only expert_panel mentions returning deliberation_id). It does not explain the output format or error handling, leaving gaps for an agent.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains most parameters in context of actions (e.g., depth for expert_panel, position_id for reframe). However, some parameters like 'result_json' and 'round' are not fully described, and the mapping of parameters to actions is not complete.

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 clearly states that the tool analyzes disagreements and finds common ground, listing specific actions like 'run', 'get_result', 'expert_panel'. It differentiates from sibling tools (admin, coordinate, etc.) by focusing on analysis of debates. However, the broad name 'analyze' could be more specific.

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 provides context for each action (e.g., triggering analysis, getting results, challenging), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'deliberation' or 'decide'. No 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations.

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