statistica_time_series

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it falls short: it never says whether this mutates the spreadsheet, creates new variables/columns, requires a running STATISTICA instance, or what happens to existing data. It adds only the single-series scope constraint, which is useful but far from sufficient for a 25-parameter tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the module identity, then the procedure enumeration, then the single-series constraint. Tight and waste-free, though the long inline procedure list makes the middle sentence dense.

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 25-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers procedure selection well but omits side effects, return shape, and instance requirements. Adequate as a minimum-viable router but leaves real gaps an agent would need to fill.

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 92%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter (lag, lags, alpha, arOrder, model, etc.). The description adds the cross-cutting rule that autocorrelation/partial_autocorrelation/spectral/smoothing/differencing/descriptives operate on one series, but no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific resource ('Time Series / Forecasting module') and enumerates the eleven procedures, which clearly separates it from siblings like statistica_regression, statistica_anova, and statistica_correlation. It does not name an alternative tool directly, but the domain is unambiguous.

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 lists what procedures exist but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to overlapping siblings such as add_lag_column (which resembles the 'shift' procedure) or statistica_correlation. The only routing hint is the single-series note.

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