Fit dual water tank model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions automatic inference but does not describe key behaviors such as whether the tool is read-only, what outputs it produces, potential side effects (e.g., file creation), or performance considerations like long runtimes. This is insufficient for a tool with 22 parameters.

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 sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the primary action. Excellent conciseness.

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's complexity (22 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify the return value or output format, lack of guidance on required vs optional parameters, and no mention of error conditions or constraints. An agent cannot reliably use this tool without additional context.

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 only 27%, and the description does not explain any parameters beyond mentioning automatic inference of direction, signs, and bounds. It adds little value beyond the schema, which itself leaves many parameters (e.g., seed, r_upper, max_points, generations, etc.) without documentation. The description should clarify key parameters and their roles.

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 fits the dual water tank model to one file/sheet, distinguishing it from sibling tools like batch_fit (batch) and preview_dual_water_tank_data (preview). It also mentions automatic inference of direction, signs, and bounds, adding specificity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., batch fitting or preview). It implies use for single file/sheet fitting but lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios where other tools are preferable.

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