sweep

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

The annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behavior. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the tool scores every participant and checks content similarity, timing anomalies, and amplification signals, which goes beyond basic annotation details.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence expands with the key detection mechanisms, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 description explains what the tool analyzes and what signals it checks, but because there is no output schema, it does not describe the return format or how the participant scoring is delivered. This leaves a meaningful gap for an analysis tool.

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 both platform and threadId are already documented. The description adds general context about thread analysis but does not add parameter-specific meaning 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Analyze a thread or conversation') and details the manipulation patterns detected, such as coordinated bots, sock puppets, and astroturfing. It is clear about the tool's function, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools agentscore and xray.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to analyze a thread for manipulation patterns. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to the alternative sibling tools.

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