evaluate_due_analyses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so excellently. It discloses side effects (temporary chart changes, recording results, restoration), the conditional nature of those effects, and failure semantics: 'Individual failures do not stop the batch; a chart restoration failure stops all remaining work.' This is transparent and actionable.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, execution flow, and failure handling. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundant restatement of schema details. No filler or unnecessary elaboration.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, side effects, and failure modes. It states what preview returns (candidates and estimated chart changes) and what execution does (records results and restores charts). It does not describe the return format after execution or prerequisites like having a chart selected, but the schema covers parameter details, making this reasonably complete.

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 high at 86%, so the baseline is already 3. The description adds real semantic value beyond the schema by explaining that confirm=true is what triggers chart mutation and result recording, tying the parameter to observable behavior. It does not cover all parameters, but the schema already documents most of them.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Preview or evaluate due analyses directly from the local analysis journal.' It clearly distinguishes two modes—preview without confirm and execution with confirm—so an agent understands exactly what the tool does and can tell it apart from analysis-retrieval and study-runner 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 gives explicit context for when to use each mode: 'Without confirm=true it only lists candidates and estimated chart changes' vs. 'With confirmation it temporarily changes...'. It does not name alternative sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the preview/confirm distinction serves as clear usage guidance.

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