athena_sensitivity_evalue

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, but it only states the computation and inputs. It does not disclose the return format, assumptions (e.g., positive risk ratio), handling of invalid inputs, or any other behavioral traits, which is a significant gap for a standalone 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 filler. It efficiently states the verb, resource, and parameters in about 20 words, earning its place without redundancy.

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 description provides enough to understand the tool's basic action and inputs, but it omits output details (e.g., what the E-value looks like) and any caveats or edge cases. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, a slightly richer description would make it fully complete.

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 adds meaning beyond the bare schema by mapping risk_ratio to 'point estimate' and ci_limit to 'optional closest-to-null CI limit.' This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it could specify units or constraints for the 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 clearly states the tool computes the standard risk-ratio E-value sensitivity metric, identifying the specific metric and inputs (point estimate and optional CI limit). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool athena_sensitivity_rr_surface or other sensitivity metrics, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as athena_sensitivity_rr_surface. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for selecting this tool.

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