boxcox_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool computes mean-std scatter for lambda=0 and lambda=1, recommends a transformation, and returns a comparison figure. As an analysis tool, this is transparent about its core behavior, though it does not comment on side effects or file requirements beyond the inp_path parameter.

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 reasonably concise, with a clear purpose statement, a useful differentiation note, and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and the note is not wasted. The length is appropriate for the information conveyed.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose, usage context, parameter, and expected output (comparison figure). It does not specify prerequisites like file existence or format, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has one parameter with no description, and coverage is 0%. The description adds 'path to the .inp file' to clarify the parameter's meaning, which is helpful but minimal. It does not explain the .inp file format or expected contents, but for a single-parameter tool this is adequate.

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 'Analyse Box-Cox transformation for a time series (standalone use)' with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling guided_identification by noting its standalone scope and what the guided alternative does instead.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: 'in guided analysis use guided_identification instead' and explains the alternative's integrated workflow. This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool versus the alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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