frequency_analyse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only that this is an analysis operation; there is no disclosure of the return shape, whether results are sorted, how ties are handled, or any input-size limits — the kind of detail needed for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single compact sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse given the missing usage guidance.

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?

For a simple, read-only, three-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits return-value expectations (e.g., ranked frequency list capped by 'top') and any differentiation from the very similar char_frequency sibling.

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 all three parameters (text, mode, top) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the character/bigram mode without adding format or semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (analyse) and resource (character or bigram frequencies in text), which is clearer than most siblings. It implicitly distinguishes itself from wordfreq_analyse by naming character/bigram granularity, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling char_frequency, which sounds nearly identical.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as char_frequency or wordfreq_analyse, and no stated constraints on input size. The agent must infer selection entirely from the name.

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