get_analysis

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

The description states the tool is read-only and returns specific fields (verdict, risk score, etc.). However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., missing UUID), rate limits, or authorization requirements. Without annotations, more detail on limitations would be beneficial.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It covers the purpose, key input, and return value without extraneous words.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fairly covers the return values (verdict, risk score, etc.). It lacks error handling details but is otherwise sufficient.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a description. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond restating the UUID origin. Per guidelines, high schema coverage leads to baseline 3.

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 action (Retrieve), the resource (Rubiscout analysis), and the method (by UUID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_email (which creates) and list_analyses (which lists).

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 when to use the tool (to fetch a specific analysis). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention prerequisites like needing a UUID from analyze_email, although that context is present in the schema.

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