Analyze Document

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by noting 'Calls an external AI model,' which is a key behavioral trait not captured in annotations. It also states requirements (open project, valid document id). No contradictions; score reflects added context beyond annotations.

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 three sentences long, each serving a purpose: first sentence states core function, second explains optional narrowing and alternatives, third notes external AI call and requirements. Front-loaded with most important info, no redundant words. Very 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?

Given the tool complexity (2 params, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, how to narrow analysis, alternatives, requirements, and that it uses an external AI model. It could mention the return format or pagination, but the description already gives a good sense of outputs ('summary of readability, pacing, and the top issues found'). Missing some detail on document ID format, but still adequate.

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 50%: only 'analysisTypes' has a description. The description adds context by explaining how to use analysisTypes: 'narrow it with analysisTypes to focus on style, structure, themes, characters, sentiment, or pacing.' It also mentions the need for a 'valid document id' but does not elaborate on format or constraints. This adds some semantic value but does not fully compensate for the missing documentId description in 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Analyze the writing quality of a single document and return a summary of readability, pacing, and the top issues found.' It specifies the verb ('analyze'), resource ('document'), and output. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'check_consistency' and 'enhance_content' by naming them explicitly, making the purpose unique and clear.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'general-purpose prose analyzer.' It advises when not to use and suggests alternatives: 'Use check_consistency for project-wide continuity instead, or enhance_content to get rewritten prose rather than a critique.' It also mentions prerequisites: 'Requires an open project and a valid document id.' This is comprehensive usage guidance.

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