sensitivity_analysis

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description does not clarify potential side effects (e.g., writing a CSV via save_sweep_csv) or the error behavior when max_runs is exceeded. It does add context about the required pysd dependency and the product (slope/elasticity), which is useful but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, and includes a crucial dependency note. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is adequate: it explains the OAT sweep method, output metric reduction, and the returned slope/elasticity. It misses the error-on-overflow behavior, but that is covered by schema descriptions. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without deep schema digging.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds only high-level context (sweeping each parameter) without explaining specific parameter semantics, which is acceptable per baseline rules.

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 the tool performs one-at-a-time sensitivity analysis by sweeping each parameter across a range while holding others at baseline, then reports how a chosen output metric responds with slope and elasticity. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like simulate, compare_scenarios, and calibrate.

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 implies usage context: it is for OAT sensitivity analysis and explicitly notes the pysd dependency as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, stopping short of full usage guidance.

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