athena_sensitivity_rr_surface

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

Without any annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it computes a surface, implying a pure, read-only operation, but does not disclose the exact output structure (e.g., matrix shape), edge cases, or any performance characteristics. It's adequate but lacks richer behavioral context.

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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core computation 'Compute a two-dimensional sensitivity surface' and then specifies the inputs. No wasted words.

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?

For a 3-parameter computational tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and parameter meaning but omits details about the exact return format and interpretation of the surface. It's complete enough to understand the task but not fully self-sufficient.

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 clarifies that exposure_confounder_rrs and outcome_confounder_rrs represent strengths of exposure-confounder and confounder-outcome relationships, and observed_rr is implied as the observed risk ratio. However, it does not explain value ranges or the meaning of the resulting surface values.

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 the specific verb 'Compute' and names the exact resource: 'a two-dimensional risk-ratio bias-factor sensitivity surface.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as athena_sensitivity_evalue by specifying the 2D surface nature.

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 implies its usage for sensitivity analysis given two confounder strength arrays, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like athena_sensitivity_evalue or athena_causal_robustness. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so it only achieves the 'implied usage' level.

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