run_uncertainty

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses output destinations (user workspace vs. platform file repository), return artifacts (file list, 72h download short links), an explicit negative (no base64), runtime (1–3 min) and a timeout recommendation (≥300s). It does not cover permissions/auth or error behavior, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

Information-dense but front-loaded: the purpose and the two usage modes lead, with timing/prerequisite details trailing. Every sentence carries content, though the packing of many facts into a single block slightly hurts scanability.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers both invocation paths, the required prep call, runtime/timeout, and the returned artifacts, so nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is already 86%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the mutual exclusivity of p_id and files, what each mode returns, and how quick trades scope for speed. It complements rather than merely restating 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?

States a specific verb and resource (uncertainty analysis computing sensitivity/scenario/Monte Carlo plus an overall report) and explicitly separates the two invocation modes. It even names a sibling, fast_calc_reports, as the producer of inputs, so an agent can route correctly without opening other schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use for each mode (p_id+stage for your own platform project vs. files direct-upload when there is no platform project number) and states a hard prerequisite (call get_protocol_instructions first). It also explains the closed loop with fast_calc_reports, leaving little to inference.

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