athena_structural_reliability_calibrate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature, the pooling of duplicate support coordinates before PAV, and the caveat that the result is not a causal graph posterior. This goes beyond a simple restatement.

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 two sentences and packs the main action, method, and caveat efficiently. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause adds context. It is dense but not overly verbose.

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 tool is moderately complex with 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the core method and a key caveat, but lacks details on return values, parameter formats, and usage prerequisites. Given the lack of schema descriptions, it is sufficient but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. It only hints at 'supports' via duplicate coordinates and 'folds' via out-of-fold, but the calibration_examples, seed, and folds parameters are not defined. With zero schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it doesn't.

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's function: calibrating structural support against externally labelled correctness using a specific method (weighted out-of-fold isotonic reliability). It distinguishes itself by noting it is not a causal graph posterior, which separates it from sibling causal 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?

The description implies usage when calibration of structural support is needed, and mentions 'externally labelled correctness' as the reference, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No alternative tools are referenced.

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