analyze_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should compensate with behavioral details. It only states the tool is deprecated and basic function, without mentioning outcomes, side effects, or access requirements. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the deprecation warning. Every sentence serves a purpose: deprecation notice and tool function. However, it could benefit from a brief behavioral note without adding length.

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 existence of an output schema and 3 parameters, the description is too sparse. It lacks context about the nature of the analysis, expected results, and how it differs from inspect_physics beyond deprecation. More detail would be expected for a tool with such siblings.

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% description coverage for its 3 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra explanation for parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither helps nor harms.

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 the tool is for analyzing VTK/simulation data and is deprecated. It identifies the resource and action, but lacks specific details about the type of analysis beyond the schema. The deprecation notice effectively highlights that this tool is not the preferred one, distinguishing it from siblings like inspect_physics.

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 says to use inspect_physics instead, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance and a direct alternative. This is optimal for deprecation scenarios.

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