kg_analyze

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states high-level operation purposes without revealing whether operations are read-only, potential side effects (e.g., export scope), parameter dependencies (e.g., path requiring start and end IDs), or output characteristics. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple modes.

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 sentence that efficiently lists the four operations with crisp labels and purposes. No filler words, front-loaded with the core 'Unified analysis tool' phrase, and each clause earns its place. Extremely concise and well-structured.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, 4 operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return formats, prerequisites (e.g., path requires startId/endId), operation-specific caveats (e.g., clusters threshold effects, emerging windowDays semantics), or edge cases. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the 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%, and each parameter already has a detailed description including operation-specific prefixes. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, though it does map operations to their conceptual meanings, which indirectly reinforces parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a unified analysis tool and enumerates specific operations with concise purposes: 'clusters' for topic grouping, 'emerging' for trend detection, 'graph_export' for full export, and 'path' for finding connections. This is specific and differentiates the tool's capabilities, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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 provides clear context for when to use each operation, effectively guiding selection among the four modes. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives among sibling tools, but the enumerated operations offer sufficient usage direction for an agent to choose appropriately.

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