coeus_analyze

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the tool is an umbrella and that mode selects among three options, which mostly restates the input schema. It does not describe what each mode does, what inputs it relies on, what side effects or access needs exist, or what kind of output the agent should expect.

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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than elegantly concise, and it mostly repeats information already present in the mode enum and tool name. It earns partial credit for brevity but not for informative structure.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and the description does not explain expected results for any of the three modes. For a four-parameter dispatcher with three distinct behaviors, an agent needs at least a brief account of what summarize, map, and explain produce, plus when each mode is appropriate. The current description leaves that entirely to inference.

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 baseline is 3 even though the property descriptions are minimal ('Mode', 'Model', 'Target', 'Question'). The description adds essentially no meaning beyond the schema, unless the phrase 'mode is summarize, map, or explain' is considered reinforcement of the enum. It does not explain how question and target relate to the selected mode or what valid target values look like.

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 identifies the tool as an umbrella for summarize, map, and explain modes, and the enum values confirm those modes. However, it lacks a concrete verb and resource, so it never actually states what the tool does beyond routing. It is not a tautology, but it is too abstract to fully distinguish the tool's real behavior from its siblings.

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 that selecting a mode determines the analysis type, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this umbrella tool versus dedicated siblings like coeus_summarize, coeus_codebase_map, or coeus_explain_code. No exclusion criteria or alternative-selection logic is provided, so an agent cannot know whether to call this tool or a more specific one.

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