analyze_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return shape and that ValueError can be raised, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects or whether it only returns a suggestion, although the 'should_save' return field weakly implies it does not persist anything.

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 uses a clear docstring structure with Args, Returns, and Raises. The opening sentence is front-loaded and immediately states the tool's purpose. The Raises line is terse ('Invalid input') and somewhat vague, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.

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 description covers the single input, the output dict keys, and the error condition, so a caller can invoke the tool with a message and understand the return value. It is incomplete in the context of sibling tools because it does not explain the relationship to save_memory or when to prefer this over other memory-analysis tools. For a one-parameter pure-analysis tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It adds 'User message text' to message, which provides minimal semantic context beyond the schema's type and title. The parameter is simple and self-explanatory, but no format, constraints, or examples are given.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Analyze message for memory-worthy content.' It clearly indicates that this tool evaluates a message rather than saving it, which differentiates it from siblings like save_memory. It could be stronger by explicitly distinguishing it from analyze_for_recall_process, but the core purpose is clear.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_memory, analyze_for_recall_process, or search_memory. The purpose implies it should be used to decide whether something is worth saving, but that is left to inference. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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