run_rdrobust

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

The description adds some behavioral context by listing saved outputs (bandwidths, robust estimates, plot, density check). However, it does not disclose whether the tool modifies existing files, requires authentication, or has other side effects. Annotations are all false, so no contradiction, but the description carries the burden of transparency and is only partially informative.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it lacks structure and important details. While brevity is good, it sacrifices completeness. The information is front-loaded but not efficiently organized.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (many parameters, output schema exists) and the absence of schema descriptions, the description should at least list key parameters or expected outputs. It mentions saved outputs but does not explain input requirements or the output schema. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not explain any of the parameters (e.g., p, cutoff, kernel, covariates). The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which may be insufficient for correct invocation. The description provides zero parameter-level 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?

The description states 'Run rdrobust' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It also mentions what outputs are saved (bandwidths, robust estimates, RD plot, density check), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like run_did or run_iv, but the context of regression discontinuity is implied.

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 use for regression discontinuity analysis, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to choose rdrobust over run_iv or run_regression_fixest). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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