stemlab_analysis_actions

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the call returns a retained background job that must be polled via danceflow_job_status, and the base effect profile is 'none' with conditional inference/download effects deferred to danceflow_component. This explains why readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false are set despite the inspection-only purpose, though it does not say whether retained jobs accumulate or expire.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; purpose comes first and routing/effect notes follow. The telegraphic phrasing ('poll danceflow_job_status', 'Base effect flags: none') is dense but readable.

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 shape need not be described, and the description still covers the async job model and effect profile that an agent needs before invoking. Given the minimal two-parameter surface, the only real omission is the required empty arguments object.

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 50%, and the required 'arguments' object (which permits no properties at all) is never mentioned in the description. 'Base effect flags: none' does add meaning about the permissions object beyond its schema text, partially compensating for the gap, but the required empty arguments envelope remains unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: inspect StemLab runtime or registered analysis capabilities, with the explicit scope qualifier 'without starting inference'. That distinguishes it from the execution-oriented siblings such as stemlab_generate_cues or stemlab_match_clip, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'without starting inference' signals this is a discovery/inspection call, and the description routes follow-up to danceflow_job_status for polling and danceflow_component for conditional effects. It never says explicitly when to choose this over siblings like danceflow_capabilities or stemlab_doctor, nor when not to call it.

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