inbox.analyze

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

Annotations indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) but no destructive hint. The description adds 'create' which aligns with mutation but does not disclose side effects such as job lifecycle, resource consumption, or required permissions. For a job-creation tool, more behavioral context is essential.

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 with no wasted words. However, it is too underspecified to be effective; key information about parameters and behavior is missing. Conciseness is good but at the expense of completeness.

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?

With 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and minimal description, the tool definition is severely incomplete. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of input guidance. The agent cannot reliably construct a correct request.

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 0%, and the description only mentions 'watch source' and optional 'batch_id'. The other 8 parameters (model, offline, workers, max_files, categories, etc.) are left completely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to use them meaningfully.

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 it creates an analyze job from a watch source and optional batch id. The verb 'create' and resource 'analyze job' are explicit. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from sibling tools like analyze.create or inbox.scan, leaving ambiguity about what specific analysis it performs.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze.create or inbox.scan. The description lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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