seasonal_analysis

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

The description explains the statistical method (joint F-test with HAC Newey-West standard errors) and the output (seasonality plot and D recommendation). However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose whether the tool writes files, requires permissions, or has other side effects, leaving the safety profile incomplete for a support tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a usage note and a parameter list. There is minor redundancy in repeating 'support tool', but every sentence adds functional or contextual value.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, when to use it, and how to pass the input. It also situates the tool in the workflow (after identification listing), which is helpful context. Lacks detail on output format, but the direct output statement covers the key return value.

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 input schema provides only a required string parameter named inp_path with no description. The description compensates by specifying it is a 'path to the .inp file', adding the file type and implicit purpose. This is sufficient for the single simple parameter, though it does not detail the file's contents or format.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'HAC F-test for seasonal patterns', clearly stating the tool's function. It also immediately distinguishes itself from guided analysis by naming guided_identification as the alternative, making it distinct from sibling tools.

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 explicitly states it is a 'support tool, standalone use only' and provides a direct alternative: 'in guided analysis use guided_identification instead'. It also gives context about being called internally after the identification listing, which tells the agent exactly when to invoke it.

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