Analyze Writing Style

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by listing the specific stylistic features analyzed (sentence variety, tone, voice, pacing) and confirming it returns a structured style profile. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not mention any performance or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences: first defines the tool's action and output, second gives usage guidance and alternatives. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown but referenced), the description need not detail return values. It covers the input (samples), the analysis dimensions, the output type (structured style profile), and trade-offs with sibling tools. This is fully sufficient for an agent to understand and correctly 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 coverage is 100% with a single required parameter 'samples' described as 'Array of text samples (strings) to analyze. Provide one or more passages of prose.' The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool analyzes prose style including sentence variety, tone, voice, pacing, and returns a structured profile. The description also distinguishes it from sibling tools analyze_document and check_plot_consistency by specifying what those tools do instead.

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 states when to use this tool ('Use this to characterize how something is written') and provides clear alternatives: 'use analyze_document for document-level metrics or check_plot_consistency for narrative coherence.' This gives the agent direct guidance on tool selection.

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