sensitivity_analysis

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the methodology ('one-at-a-time'), the nature of outputs (sweeps, elasticity, ranges, influential inputs), and indicates a read-only analysis operation through its focus on returns. However, it does not explicitly state side effects or prerequisites, which prevents a perfect score.

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 only two sentences, with the action front-loaded and the output details following concisely. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

The tool has 12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage. The description provides only a high-level overview and omits critical invocation details like how to specify inputs or the target metric, how variables relate to inputs, and what the response structure looks like. It is not sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool reliably.

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 only 25%, and the description does not map its language ('inputs', 'target output metric') to specific schema properties such as inputs, variables, target_metric, or variation. The mention of 'per-variable sweeps' is the only link to parameters, leaving many parameters semantically unexplained.

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 action ('Vary one or more inputs') and the output ('impact on a target output metric'), specifying the one-at-a-time method. It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing unique outputs like per-variable sweeps, elasticity estimates, and most influential inputs.

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 when to use this tool (for sensitivity analysis) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like run_scenario or compare_scenarios. There is no stated alternative or exclusion, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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