origin_peak_find

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Run Origin peak finding' without explaining side effects, whether it modifies data, requires an active project, or outputs results. This fails to inform the agent about what happens during execution.

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 a single phrase, which is concise but overly sparse. It is front-loaded but leaves out crucial information, making it borderline under-specified. Could be improved without adding significant length.

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 7 parameters (including a complex 'options' object) and an output schema that is not mentioned, the description is woefully incomplete. It omits prerequisites, how peaks are identified, output format, and behavior of optional parameters, leaving the agent ill-equipped to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (e.g., worksheet, x_col, y_col, options). Parameter names are minimally suggestive but insufficient for proper usage, especially 'options' which is a free-form object.

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 'Run Origin peak finding' clearly indicates the tool performs peak finding in Origin, with a specific verb and resource. The name reinforces this, distinguishing it from sibling analysis tools like origin_linear_fit or origin_integrate. However, it lacks scope details (e.g., on what kind of data).

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 sibling tools such as origin_descriptive_stats or origin_integrate. No context on prerequisites or recommended scenarios is given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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