yaaif_ops_analyze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It prominently declares READ-ONLY, one-shot semantics, and the conditional run_path inclusion, which are important traits for safe invocation. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior, but the key safety-relevant behavior is disclosed.

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 with no filler, front-loading READ-ONLY and the core purpose. The telemetry routing sentence is concise and actionable, earning its place without bloating the text.

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 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview but leaves important invocation details unspecified. It states key outputs like next_steps and run_path, but does not clarify how the run IDs relate, what the query scope is, or what the returned structure looks like.

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 only 40%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It alludes to 'correlate IDs' but does not explain ambient_run_id, desktop_run_id, harness_run_id, include_raw, summary_only, include_live_diag, max_chars, or max_items in any useful detail.

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 names a specific verb and resource: one-shot incident analysis that correlates IDs, ranks failures, and returns next_steps. It also distinguishes itself from yaaif_ops_telemetry by framing itself as the first-line analysis tool, so an agent can tell what it does at a glance.

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?

It explicitly says 'Prefer this first; then yaaif_ops_telemetry for drill-down,' which gives clear ordering and a concrete alternative. It does not exhaustively compare against all other ops siblings, but the guidance is actionable enough for typical selection.

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