cos_analyze_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds valuable behavioral information: under 500ms, cached per task_marker, and takes optional memory/graph context. It does not mention side effects, but for an extraction tool this is likely non-destructive.

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 compact and front-loaded. Three sentences: first states purpose and inputs, second gives historical context, third provides performance/caching. No wasted words.

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, reducing the need to describe return values. The description covers purpose, performance, caching, and input sources, but the 0% parameter coverage leaves a significant gap, making it incomplete for full usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'prompt' and 'task_marker' (via caching), leaving complexity, dimensions, session_id, and project_dir completely unexplained. This is insufficient for 6 parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('TaskSignals') from a prompt with optional context, listing the signal fields. It also differentiates from legacy 'persona keyword matching', making its purpose distinct from siblings.

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?

It provides clear context: use this to extract structured TaskSignals from a prompt, and explicitly states it replaces persona keyword matching. However, it does not offer explicit when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like cos_classify_prompt.

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