trigger_analysis

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'trigger', which suggests an action but does not specify whether the operation is asynchronous, what it returns (e.g., a job ID), whether it can be repeated, or any side effects on existing analyses. This is a significant gap for an action-oriented 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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary verb ('trigger') and immediately specifies the resource. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the outcome of triggering analysis. It fails to mention whether the operation is asynchronous, what the response contains (e.g., a job ID or status), or how it connects to get_analysis_status for tracking. This leaves the usage context incomplete for an agent.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; 'post or reply' simply mirrors the source_type enum. No extra details about parameter formats or constraints are provided.

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 identifies the action ('trigger'), the target ('V3 argument analysis'), and the scope ('post or reply'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_analysis_status and get_argument_graph, which retrieve results rather than initiate processing.

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 implies the tool is used to manually start analysis, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives such as get_analysis_status or how it relates to automatic analysis. There is no clear exclusion or comparison with sibling tools.

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