analyze_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does state that the tool is deprecated, which is critical. However, it does not explain what happens if an agent tries to invoke it (e.g., will it still work, return an error, or behave unpredictably?). The expected behavior during the deprecation period is not clarified.

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 consists of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the deprecation warning and alternative, which is effective. The second sentence provides a brief purpose. It is concise, though slightly repetitive with the alternative being mentioned in both sentences.

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 the tool is deprecated and there is an output schema, the description is adequate for its primary goal of steering agents away. It names the alternative `inspect_physics`. However, it does not explain what analysis `analyze_data` originally performed beyond the generic statement, which could leave an agent uninformed if they need to understand the domain. Still, for a deprecated tool, the completeness is sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the description does not need to add much. The description adds no additional context beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 states it analyzes VTK/simulation data, which is a specific verb-resource pair. However, it is very generic and does not specify what kind of analysis (e.g., statistics, visualization, extraction). The sibling tool `inspect_physics` is mentioned as the alternative, but the description does not elaborate on how `analyze_data` differs from other siblings like `extract_stats` or `probe_timeseries`.

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 explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and directs the agent to use `inspect_physics` instead. It provides clear when-not-to-use guidance and a specific alternative, which is exemplary for preventing misuse.

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