Analyze Narrative Structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds context about optional metrics/visualization output and the requirement for an open project and valid document ID. No contradictions.

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: first defines purpose and output, second gives usage guidance and prerequisites. No fluff, every sentence adds value, and the key information is 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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's complexity (3 params, one nested). It explains what the output contains (structured report, optionally with metrics/visualization). However, the exact structure of the report is vague, and the documentId parameter has no description, leaving minor gaps.

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 67% (documentId lacks description). The description adds meaningful context by linking 'arc', 'motifs', and 'entity relationships' to the analysisType enum, and 'metrics' and 'visualization data' to the options nested object. This compensates for the missing documentId description.

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 analyzes narrative structure (arc, motifs, entity relationships) and returns a structured report. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from siblings by naming analyze_document and check_consistency.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use (structural/arc analysis of one document) and when not (use analyze_document for prose quality, check_consistency for contradictions). Also mentions prerequisite: requires open project and valid document ID.

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