cortex_run_analyzer_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error states (e.g., what happens if the analyzer name is not found). The minimal description does not adequately disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and is a mutation (runs an analyzer), the description is too brief. It lacks information about return values, job creation, error handling, and expected behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., analyzerName, dataType, data). It does not clarify syntax, formats, or relationships.

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 runs an analyzer by name instead of ID, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool cortex_run_analyzer by explicitly contrasting name vs ID.

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 labels the tool a 'convenience wrapper', implying it is an alternative to cortex_run_analyzer (ID-based), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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