analyze_portal

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the tool's behavior: it returns portal metadata, pages, widgets, usage counts, and theme details. It implies a read-only operation and provides a detailed output list, though it does not explicitly state side effects or authentication needs.

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 succinct with no wasted words: it starts with the core action, then parameter detail, then a bullet-style list of returns, and ends with a usage tip. Ideal front-loading and structure.

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 lists all major return categories, compensating for the lack of output schema. It covers metadata, pages, widgets, usage counts, and theme. However, it omits potential prerequisites (e.g., portal existence) and does not mention error cases or data freshness.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for 'portal_id'. The description adds that the value can be a URL suffix or sys_id, which aligns with the schema but does not add meaningful new semantics beyond the schema's own description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it analyzes a complete Service Portal, listing specific components (pages, widgets, theme, usage counts), and distinguishes from sibling 'analyze_*' tools which target different domains.

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 clearly advises using the tool before starting portal development to understand existing artifacts, providing a clear context of use. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or list alternatives, but the context is strong.

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