plan_psychometric_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool only returns a plan, whether it has side effects, or what the 'analysis sequence' output looks like. 'Create' is ambiguous and could imply persistence.

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 focused sentence, front-loading the verb and object. There is no redundancy or filler, making it efficiently scannable.

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 rich request schema and the existence of sibling analysis tools, the description is too abstract to fully guide invocation. It does not clarify the nature of the output plan, the relationship to the sibling tools, or the role of each input. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description remains incomplete.

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 should compensate by describing the request fields. The phrase 'intended use and design' loosely maps to purpose and design parameters but does not explain any specific field, enum, or default. It adds only minimal semantic value over the schema's property names.

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 specific action and resource: 'Create a measurement-aware analysis sequence.' It also identifies the input basis ('intended use and design'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling analysis tools, so an agent may not immediately know this is a planning tool distinct from ctt_item_analysis or rasch_model.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling analysis tools. The description implies planning from design inputs but never states that this should be used before executing analyses, nor mentions any prerequisites or exclusions.

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