athena_fci_lite_discover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does explain the algorithm's bounded and limited propagation aspects, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, return format, or computational constraints, leaving important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence is dense but packs in the core algorithm details; the second clarifies scope. It is appropriately concise for the technical content, though jargon-heavy.

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?

This is a complex causal discovery tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation. The description does not clarify what a 'partial ancestral candidate' looks like as a return value, how samples should be formatted, or what 'bounded' means in practice. Incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 description's phrase 'conditioning subsets up to a declared order' maps loosely to max_conditioning, but it does not explain samples, variables, or alpha. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Build a bounded FCI-inspired partial ancestral candidate') and defines its scope (conditioning subsets up to declared order, collider orientation, limited propagation). It distinguishes itself from full FCI/RFCI, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like athena_pc_stable_discover or athena_pag_candidate_discover.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Not full FCI/RFCI' implies it is a lighter-weight option, but there is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling discovery tools.

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