analyze_problem

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it implies a step-by-step breakdown but doesn't specify output format, limitations, or side effects. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description doesn't enrich behavioral understanding significantly.

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 poorly structured and not front-loaded. It starts with a confusing keyword-like phrase ('문제 분석|어떻게 접근|분석해줘|analyze this|how to approach|break this down') before the core function. This wastes space and reduces clarity. The core message is concise, but the overall structure is inefficient.

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?

Given no output schema and annotations covering basic safety, the description lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what the structured steps output looks like, any limitations (e.g., problem size), or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool with 2 parameters and many siblings, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer usage.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions ('Problem to analyze', 'Problem domain'). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 breaks down complex problems into structured steps, which is a clear purpose. However, it's somewhat vague ('complex problem' is broad) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'step_by_step_analysis' or 'analyze_complexity' that might have overlapping functionality. The initial phrase '문제 분석|어떻게 접근|분석해줘|analyze this|how to approach|break this down' appears to be keyword-like and doesn't add clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'step_by_step_analysis', 'analyze_complexity', 'analyze_requirements'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient.

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