get_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the main behavioral traits: this is an aggregated analysis, each section has interpretation guidance, and requesting all sections is large. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error conditions, or whether analysis is computed on demand, but for a named get operation the core behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 and front-loaded with the core concept, then lists sections, then gives usage guidance. The final line about omitting 'section' is useful but slightly awkward with a double space and no punctuation. Overall, every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does a reasonable job of describing the return shape by naming sections and the 'reading' line. However, it leaves the required 'crawl' parameter unexplained and gives no hint about when a crawl is ready to analyze. It is adequate for a simple read operation but has clear gaps.

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 provides zero descriptions, so the description must explain both parameters. It explains 'section' by enumerating valid sections and the omit-for-all behavior, but it does not explain the required 'crawl' parameter at all. This leaves the most important input undocumented.

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 resource as the derived analysis of a set of URLs and distinguishes it from per-URL data by saying 'what the SET of URLs means, not what each URL is.' It also lists the specific sections, making the purpose concrete. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieves,' but the tool name and scope make the purpose evident.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_issues or read_export, and it does not mention prerequisites like having a completed crawl. The only usage-related information is about the 'section' parameter, which is parameter-level guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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