Vary a single parameter across explicit values to reveal how sensitive an audience-response model is to that input.
Vary one parameter over explicit values to expose model sensitivity. Not a creative improvement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| values | Yes | ||
| options | No | ||
| document | Yes | ||
| parameter | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds that the sweep uses explicit discrete values (deterministic enumeration rather than open-ended search), which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about cost, runtime, or what the sweep produces.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, with no filler. The second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic, but it occupies little space and tries to add a useful boundary.
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 tool with nested object inputs, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and a similarly named sibling, this two-sentence description is far too thin. It does not explain required inputs, expected output, or how results should be interpreted.
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 there are 4 parameters including nested 'document' and 'options' objects. The description only indirectly gestures at 'parameter' and 'values'; the critical 'document' input (what model/artifact is being probed) and 'options' are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 a concrete operation ('vary one parameter over explicit values') which is more specific than a tautology, but it never says what is being varied or what 'model sensitivity' refers to. It also does not distinguish itself from the close sibling ap_tune_parameters, which an agent would reasonably consider for parameter variation work.
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?
'Not a creative improvement' is a negative scoping hint, but it names no alternative, no precondition, and no condition under which this tool should be chosen over ap_tune_parameters, ap_compare, or ap_evaluate. The agent is left to guess when sensitivity sweeping is the right move.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.