athena_prequential_interval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the empirical, non-guaranteed nature and the OOD inflation behavior, but does not mention side effects, persistence, permissions, or output structure. This is adequate but not rich.

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 dense sentences front-load the core action and then add a crucial caveat. No filler or repetition.

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?

A 7-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema needs more explanation to be safely invoked. This description lacks parameter constraints, return semantics, and usage scenarios, making it incomplete for an agent despite the clear summary.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the seven parameters. The phrases 'V5 observations' and 'OOD pressure' loosely map to features/regime/ood_gain, but required fields like arm_id, scope, coverage, and min_scores receive no semantic guidance.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Build' and identifies a distinct resource ('empirical prequential residual band') plus scope ('retained pre-update V5 observations', 'current OOD pressure'). The final sentence explicitly distances it from conformal guarantees, which helps differentiate it from sibling uncertainty/calibration 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?

Implies use under current OOD pressure with retained V5 data, and warns it is not a distribution-free conformal guarantee. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or name a specific sibling tool, so guidance remains somewhat implicit.

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