run_did

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Run DiD workflows' without indicating side effects, state changes, or resource requirements. No mention of auth needs, rate limits, or what gets created/modified. This is insufficient for a tool that likely produces outputs or modifies state.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, it is overly brief given the tool's complexity, sacrificing essential details. It front-loads the verb but does not earn its place with substantive content beyond the obvious.

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 complex tool with a nested input schema, many required parameters, and no parameter descriptions, a single sentence is grossly inadequate. The description does not explain the purpose of parameters, output (though output schema exists), or how it relates to sibling tools. It misses critical context for correct usage.

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%, meaning the description must add meaning to the parameters. However, it does not mention any parameter names, required fields, or their meanings. The description only provides high-level tool purpose, leaving the user with no guidance on how to fill in the many parameters (project_root, data_path, outcome, etc.).

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 runs DiD workflows, specifically TWFE event studies and Callaway-Sant'Anna estimates. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like run_iv or run_regression_fixest which handle other econometric methods.

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 for difference-in-differences tasks but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_regression_fixest. It mentions the two methods available via the method parameter, but lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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