cortex_run_analyzer_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the burden falls on the description. It only says 'submit for analysis' without disclosing behavioral traits like error handling, permissions, rate limits, or whether the analysis is synchronous. This is insufficient for a mutation-like tool.

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, readable sentence that conveys the essential action. It is efficient with no redundant words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the two input methods into separate clauses.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain relationships (e.g., filePath vs fileBase64 mutual exclusivity), constraints (filePath confined to directory), or required combinations (filename with fileBase64). The schema covers details but the description lacks synthesis.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a high-level overview ('provide a file path or base64-encoded content') but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('submit a file') and the resource ('to a specific analyzer'), and specifies two input methods (file path or base64). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cortex_run_analyzer which likely handle observables.

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 mentions providing a file path or base64 content but does not give guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cortex_run_analyzer for observables) or when not to use it. No exclusions are stated.

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