analyze_research

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

No annotations provided; description lacks disclosure of side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It does not state if the tool is read-only or modifies state. The mention of 'Kimi K3' and 'conversational' hints at LLM usage but is unclear.

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 concise (two sentences) but reads as a feature list. Efficient, but could be more structured with bullet points.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description partially covers output features (confidence, follow-up questions) but does not explicitly state return format or prerequisite flow with retrieval tools.

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 high (80%), so baseline 3. The description adds no extra parameter detail; the schema already explains depth, research_mode, and content well.

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 it conducts conversational, evidence-bound research and supports synthesis, comparison, verification, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are retrieval-focused.

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 implies it is used after retrieving evidence, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites.

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