cortex_run_analyzer_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states submission, but does not disclose whether the operation is asynchronous, returns a job, requires specific permissions, or has side effects.

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 concise sentence that covers the core action. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could benefit from a brief structure for key parameters.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description omits return values, error conditions, and behavioral context (e.g., job creation), leaving the agent underinformed for a moderately complex submission.

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 input schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage). The description merely repeats the file path/base64 duality without adding extra meaning or constraints beyond the schema.

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 states the action ('submit a file') and the resource ('to a specific analyzer'), specifying two input methods (file path or base64-encoded content). It distinguishes from siblings like cortex_run_analyzer which likely handles observables, not files.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings such as cortex_run_analyzer or cortex_run_analyzer_by_name. The agent is not informed about the appropriate context for file-based analysis.

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