athena_pc_stable_discover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'bounded,' 'limited Meek orientation,' and 'Hypothesis graph only,' which gives useful caveats about the algorithm's scope. However, it does not mention return format, failure modes, or runtime behavior, leaving gaps for a discovery 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds technical substance, making it appropriately concise for the tool's purpose.

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?

Despite the algorithm complexity, there is no output schema and no annotations. The description neither explains what 'Hypothesis graph only' means in practice nor describes parameter semantics, input expectations, or output structure. It is far too sparse to fully guide an agent for a 4-parameter causal discovery tool.

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. It does not explicitly explain any of the four parameters. 'Bounded' and 'Fisher-z tests' only indirectly relate to max_conditioning and alpha, but the description adds little concrete meaning beyond what the schema already shows (names and types alone).

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and names the exact algorithm variant (PC-stable, Gaussian, Fisher-z, limited Meek orientation). It also explicitly states 'Hypothesis graph only,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_fci_lite_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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or name sibling tools for comparison. The brief algorithm mention implies usage but provides no actionable 'use this when...' context.

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