assess_methodology

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral boundary — the output is phrase-level screening, not a validated risk-of-bias or statistical assessment — which helps an agent avoid misusing the result. It says nothing about input requirements, safety profile, or what the screening returns, leaving substantial behavioral gaps.

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 single-sentence fragment is brief but under-specified rather than concise — it spends its only content on exclusions and never describes the action. Front-loading the scope limitation is good, but the definition is too thin to earn its place.

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?

In a dense sibling set with multiple audit and statistical-checking tools, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should do far more. It usefully carves out a niche versus audits but omits return format, expected input content, and any usage conditions.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It offers no indication of what source_text should contain (abstract? full paper? methods section?) or what source_id refers to, despite source_text format being critical for a screening tool.

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 identifies the operation as 'transparent phrase screening,' which gives some sense of scope and distinguishes it from heavier siblings like audit_methodology and check_statistical_reporting. However, it never states a concrete verb-plus-resource ('screens methodology phrases in a source text') or what the screening produces, so the purpose is only implied.

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 'NOT a RoB-2, GRADE, or statistical audit' clause effectively signals when this tool is the wrong choice and implicitly routes the agent toward audit_methodology/check_statistical_reporting. It never states when this tool IS the right choice or names those alternatives explicitly, so guidance is only half-present.

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