analyze_student

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the key side effect of recording runs for auditing and the parallel execution behavior. It does not detail failure handling, but covers significant behavioral traits.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, then details the components, side effect, and args/returns. No extraneous information.

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 aggregate nature of the tool, the description covers the inputs, return summary, and side effect. While partial-failure behavior isn't described, it's not essential; output schema likely covers return details.

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 only parameter (student_id) is described as a UUID, adding meaning beyond the schema's generic string type. This clarifies expected input format.

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 tool runs the full analysis pipeline for a student, listing the components (resume, GitHub, LeetCode, portfolio). It distinguishes from sibling analyze_* tools by emphasizing 'full' and 'parallel'.

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 implies use when a comprehensive analysis of all four sources is needed, while individual siblings handle single components. No explicit 'when not to use' is given, but the scope is clear from the listed components.

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