analyze_vehicle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does fairly well: 'without editing them' discloses non-destructive read-only behavior, 'Observations are not game verification' discloses a reliability limitation on output, and 'All are paginated' discloses pagination behavior. It omits auth requirements and rate limits, but for a read/analysis tool the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 content is dense and front-loaded with purpose, followed by caveats, search guidance, and the section list. Every sentence adds information, though the run-on structure of the middle sentences could be tightened slightly.

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, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers scope, section inventory, search focus, pagination, and key caveats. The remaining gap is an explicit routing statement versus the parallel analysis siblings, which would fully round it out.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does: 'Sections: parts, links, controllers, bodies, placement_issues, connection_candidates, open_transmission_ports' enumerates the valid values for the section parameter, the search terms hint at the search parameter's semantics, and 'All are paginated' explains the limit/offset pair. It leaves the name and source parameters (including source default 'vehicles') undefined.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it reads saved-vehicle examples and reports on body groups, link coverage, and rudder mounting/motion issues. It enumerates the concrete output sections (parts, links, controllers, bodies, etc.), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling analyze_land_vehicle, which slightly weakens disambiguation.

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 gives actionable usage context ('Search rudder/propeller/engine/trans to focus evidence', 'Supports multi-body references without editing them') and a caveat that observations aren't game verification. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling analysis tools like analyze_land_vehicle or preview_vehicle_diagnostics, so the when-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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