test_interventions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the statistical tests performed (t-test on each omega, Wald joint test for transfer functions), the exclusions, and the significance threshold via alpha. It does not detail return formats or side effects, but the statistical behavior is well covered.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by concise explanatory bullets and a clear parameter section. No sentences are wasted, and the structure makes it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has two simple parameters and no output schema, but the description provides enough context for correct invocation: it states the input file type, the significance threshold, and the purpose of the test. A minor gap is the lack of explicit information about the return value, but the description implies a list of non-significant interventions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains inp_path as a path to a fitted .inp or .pre file, and alpha as the significance level for classification with a default of 0.05. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema and fully clarifies both parameters.

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 precise statement: 'Test H₀: ω=0 for every non-structural intervention in a fitted model.' This clearly identifies the action (testing) and the target (non-structural interventions), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like intervention_analysis or formal_tests. It also explicitly notes which interventions are excluded, reinforcing its specific scope.

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 states when to use the tool: to identify non-significant interventions that can be removed to simplify the model. It also clarifies that structural interventions are skipped by default, giving a clear boundary. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong.

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