Analyze target

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: it names the return contents (summary, findings with confidence, limitations, overview) and explains the chunked-scan state machine with `complete`/`coverage`. It stops short of noting cost or latency for large scans.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the batching caveat. The format enumeration is long but earns its place as a capability boundary; minor density is acceptable for a tool with this many supported inputs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the returned artifacts (summary, findings, limitations, overview, collections). Together with the batch/coverage explanation, an agent has enough to invoke it and know what to do with a partial result.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by tying `scan`/`batch`/`include` semantics to the "complete is false" loop and clarifying that every list covers only the scanned part. That cross-parameter interaction is not derivable from the per-property schema descriptions alone.

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 ("Run the built-in analyzer") plus the resource and enumerates the supported formats, so an agent knows exactly what class of work this tool performs versus siblings like hexvero_strings or hexvero_collection. The mention of "collections available for paging" also signals the handoff relationship to hexvero_collection.

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?

Gives concrete usage rules for the paging case: "when `complete` is false... call again with scan to read more," which is exactly the when-to-call-again condition an agent needs. It does not state when to prefer this over hexvero_check or hexvero_providers, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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