analyze_report

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

The description mentions multi-step processing (download, decompress, parse, aggregate), hinting at resource usage and potential network activity. However, it provides no details about side effects, error cases, return format, or performance implications, and there are no annotations to compensate.

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 with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure such as bullet points or sections, and could benefit from more detail without becoming overly verbose.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, multi-step processing, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'aggregate' means, what the return value is, how to configure the download/parsing, or any error scenarios. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.

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 description does not explain any of the seven parameters, even though schema description coverage is only 43%. Parameters like limit, metric, timeoutMs, and maxPathDepth have no explanations in either the description or the schema, leaving the agent unable to understand their purpose.

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 specific actions (download, decompress, parse, aggregate) on 'one SPX full report', which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_hot_paths or get_function_profile, which could be used for more granular analysis.

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 alternatives, prerequisites, or contexts where it would be inappropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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