stats_stats_moving_average

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the algorithm parameters but does not explain default behavior (e.g., default window), error handling for empty arrays, side effects, or return format. The description is incomplete for safe invocation.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the brevity sacrifices important details. A slightly longer description could improve clarity without being verbose.

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 tool has four parameters (one required) and an output schema, the description should cover more aspects like default window, data handling, and return structure. The current description is too minimal to fully guide an agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'kind' and 'alpha' but not 'values' or 'window'. Missing details like window size meaning, data type expectations for values, and defaults. Only partial parameter information is provided.

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 computes moving averages and specifies two kinds (SMA and EMA). The verb 'Moving average' combined with '[stats]' prefix indicates the purpose, distinguishing it from sibling stats tools like correlation or histogram. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings.

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 moving average vs other stats tools, or when to choose SMA versus EMA. No exclusions or alternative tools mentioned. The description is purely declarative.

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