zdx_get_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. It adds behavioral context about possible states ('still running or its results if complete'), which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and provides key details (read-only, status/result, start tool) in a compact form.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers what the tool does, its read-only nature, and how to initiate an analysis. It is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity, though it could mention error behavior for invalid IDs.

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 has no description for the parameter (0% coverage), and the description does not explicitly explain the analysis_id format or source. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory and the instruction 'Start one with zdx_start_analysis' implies that the ID comes from that call, providing some semantic clues.

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 gets the status/result of a ZDX score analysis, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ZDX score analysis'). It distinguishes itself from related tools by referencing zdx_start_analysis and noting it returns the 'full record', which differentiates it from other zdx_get_* tools.

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 implies usage after starting an analysis ('Start one with zdx_start_analysis'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the reference to the start tool gives enough guidance for typical use cases.

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