Analyze database

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation: output is markdown-formatted counts/rates/lists/dates, and the tool intentionally provides no scores or recommendations. This helps an agent set expectations about the return value and its limitations. It does not mention the cache behavior, but the fresh parameter already documents that in the schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The action, scope, output format, and key caveat are all front-loaded, and every clause earns its place. This is an exemplar of concise tool documentation.

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 rich schema covering all 7 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete for call selection and invocation. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and an important behavioral boundary. Nothing critical for an agent to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description only repeats the analysis enum names without adding parameter-level detail. Per the calibration baseline, 3 is appropriate because the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema for parameters.

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: 'Read-only analytics over the OmniFocus database', then enumerates the four supported analyses. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling CRUD/search tools and even from other read-only tools like dump_database or get_project_counts by framing it as analytics rather than raw retrieval.

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 conveys when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs summarized analytics such as health_snapshot, velocity, overdue_clusters, or stalled_projects. The phrase 'no scores and no recommendations — so the caller does the interpreting' also tells the agent that this tool is not for decisions requiring judgment. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions relative to sibling tools.

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