analyze-notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions analysis but doesn't describe what the analysis returns (summary statistics, insights, comparisons), whether it's computationally intensive, if there are rate limits, or what permissions might be required. The description is too vague about the actual behavior of the tool.

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, efficient Japanese sentence that states the core purpose. It's appropriately concise without being overly brief, though it could potentially be more structured by separating different analysis types or adding a brief example.

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 complex analysis tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the analysis output looks like (structured data, insights, comparisons), what 'detailed analysis' entails, or how the various parameters affect the analysis results. The agent would struggle to understand what to expect from this tool.

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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 states the tool performs 'detailed analysis of notes (competitive analysis, content performance comparison, etc.)', which provides a general purpose. However, it doesn't specify what type of analysis is performed (statistical, qualitative, etc.) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'search-notes' or 'get-stats'. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity about the analysis methodology.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve notes (search-notes, get-my-notes, get-user-notes, etc.), the description doesn't explain why an agent would choose this analysis tool over those retrieval tools or when analysis is preferable to simple searching.

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