analyze_detector

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows it is not read-only but also not destructive. The description adds the 'no significance' limitation but does not explain what state is changed, what permissions are needed, or what the coarse masses mean operationally. For a non-read-only analysis tool, that leaves important behavior undisclosed.

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 very short and front-loads the method, but it is two dense fragments rather than a structured explanation. It avoids waste, yet the terseness comes at the cost of clarity for an agent.

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 four-parameter analysis tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is far from complete. It gives a high-level method and one caveat but omits return values, input semantics, side effects, and usage context.

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% across four parameters, and the description does not define run_id, detector, f_low, or masses. 'Detector-frame masses' vaguely gestures at the masses parameter, but it does not explain format, bounds, defaults, or requiredness beyond the schema's required list.

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 names a specific technique (PSD-weighted bounded template-bank search) and a limitation (coarse detector-frame masses, no significance), but it never states in plain terms what analyze_detector does or what it returns. It is more specific than a tautology, yet an agent cannot confidently distinguish its purpose from generic analysis without domain knowledge.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives among siblings are mentioned. The only usage-adjacent note is 'no significance,' which is a caveat rather than routing guidance.

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