stats_zscore

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

Discloses return values (z-scores, mean, standard deviation, flags) and distinguishes static vs rolling via window parameter. Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent, and description adds behavioral context beyond them.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second adds usage guidance and return information. Well-structured and efficient.

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?

Explains return values in the absence of an output schema, covering z-scores, mean, standard deviation, and flags. The description also implies behavior for rolling vs static, making it complete for a function of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'rolling and static' and 'extreme value detection', which aligns with window and threshold parameters, but adds minimal new semantic detail 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 clearly states it computes rolling and static z-scores with extreme value detection, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling statistical tools by focusing on z-scores and extreme flags.

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?

Explicitly states usage for 'computing z-scores for statistical analysis or detecting extremes', providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or offer alternative tools among siblings.

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