analyze_japanese

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It adds the useful trait 'deterministically' and lists the output structure, but it does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or any limits. This is a moderate addition, not a full disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every phrase contributes to the understanding of the tool's function (deterministic analysis, input language, output categories). It is appropriately concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 7 input parameters with zero documentation in either the schema or the description. The description only states the high-level purpose and output categories, leaving the agent without critical information about how to set parameters like analysis_depth, execution_mode, or known_entities. This is substantially incomplete for correct invocation.

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% and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (e.g., original_text, analysis_depth, execution_mode). The description only lists output categories, providing no meaning for the input parameters, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('analyze') with a clear resource ('Japanese text') and enumerates concrete output categories (intents, references, metaphors, contradictions, guard results, ordered Task Packets). This makes the tool's function unambiguous, even without sibling tools to differentiate.

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 usage for Japanese text analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Since there are no sibling tools listed, the absence of explicit alternatives is not penalized heavily, but the description still lacks explicit usage context.

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