omnifocus_analyze

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description adds detailed performance warnings (e.g., pattern_analysis on 1000+ items takes 5-10 seconds) and caching behavior, which is excellent for agent decision-making.

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 well-structured with clear sections (ANALYSIS TYPES, PERFORMANCE WARNINGS, SCOPE FILTERING) and front-loads the purpose. It is reasonably concise with no redundancy.

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 complexity (multiple analysis types, nested params) and no output schema, the description covers scope, performance, and some param details. Missing explicit output format, but still fairly complete.

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% and the description partially compensates by detailing params for manage_reviews and mentioning scope filtering. However, not all analysis types' params are described, leaving gaps.

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 analyzes OmniFocus data for insights and lists specific analysis types. It is distinct from sibling tools (read/write) but does not explicitly differentiate them.

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 when to use each analysis type and performance warnings, but it does not offer explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool or compare it with siblings like omnifocus_read.

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