data_prepare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, and it does so well: it discloses that output is numeric-only, has no header, flags missing values, truncates names to 8 characters, and returns specific artifacts plus rename/recode notes. It does not discuss source-file mutability or overwrite behavior, but the main behavioral traits are explicit.

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 one dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then packs only high-value details: supported formats, transformation rules, and returned artifacts. There is no filler.

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 12-parameter conversion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: input formats, output behavior, and return contents. It could mention file-writing behavior more explicitly, but the schema documents out_path, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds useful global context for parameters such as missing_flag, header, and encode_strings, but it does not add per-parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Convert') and a precise resource (data files into an Mplus .dat file), then enumerates the supported formats and key transformation rules. This clearly distinguishes data_prepare from sibling tools that handle syntax, execution, or output inspection.

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 makes the tool's use case obvious: prepare a data file for Mplus analysis and get the blocks to paste into an input file. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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