analyze_format

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'reverse-analyze' and extraction targets, but omits whether the tool is read-only, requires file existence, or has side effects. No permissions or error behavior are mentioned.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loading the action and targets. However, it could be structured with bullet points for clarity.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return format or structure. It lists extracted elements (header, footer, etc.) but does not describe how they are returned (e.g., as JSON fields). Error cases are not mentioned.

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 parameter 'path' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description partially compensates by implying the path points to a file of the listed types, but does not detail path requirements (e.g., absolute vs relative, supported protocols).

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's purpose: reverse-analyzing sample documents to extract structure (header, footer, numbering, citation format). It specifies supported file types (docx, pdf, md, txt, hwp). This is specific and actionable, though the 'req 4' suffix is ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools list includes many legal analysis tools, but the description provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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