analyze_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'analyze' suggests a read-only operation, the description doesn't clarify permissions needed, computational cost, whether this is a heavy operation, what format results come in, or any rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that gets straight to the point without any fluff. Every word earns its place by communicating the core functionality efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what kind of analysis is performed, what format results are returned in, computational characteristics, or how this differs from sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 75%, with three parameters having descriptions and one (connectionTypes) lacking description. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'depth' means in practical terms, what the connection types represent, or how parameters interact. With decent schema coverage, this meets the baseline.

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 verb ('analyze') and resource ('connections and relationships between pages'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'extract_themes' or 'search_pages' - both could also involve analyzing page relationships, so differentiation is missing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'extract_themes' or 'search_pages'. There's no mention of specific scenarios, prerequisites, or comparative use cases that would help an agent choose appropriately between these sibling tools.

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