build_master_bias

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations: caching by fingerprint, instant returns on cache hits, and async execution unless wait:true. It also discloses the rejection method. However, it does not state what is returned on a miss or whether an existing master bias is overwritten.

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?

Three tight, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, followed by caching behavior and async semantics. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 5 parametersaching, and async behavior, but critical invocation details remain unclear: what force does, what a non-cached response looks like, and how rejection values are specified. Since there is no output schema and annotations are minimal, these gaps matter.

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 coverage is 60%, so the schema covers some parameters. The description adds semantics for wait ('async unless wait:true') and hints at rejection ('percentile rejection by count'), but it does not explain force or enumerate valid rejection values, leaving gaps for the less-documented parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('Integrate') and resource ('bias frames into a master bias'), and distinguishes the algorithm ('average, Winsorized/percentile rejection by count, no normalization'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like build_master_dark and build_master_flat.

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 by naming the bias-frame-to-master-bias purpose, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over build_master_dark or build_master_flat. There are no exclusion conditions or alternative recommendations, so usage guidance is only implied.

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