cst_sensitivity_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only says 'set up', which suggests configuration but not execution, and does not disclose side effects, return values, or whether it runs a simulation. This is insufficient behavioral detail.

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 efficient sentences with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded and actionable.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should hint at return values or whether the analysis is executed. It lacks details on what happens after setup (e.g., ranking, simulation trigger). Given the tool's complexity (array parameters, analysis setup), the description is 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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that parameters are varied individually and result_path is the monitored result. It contextualizes the nominal and perturbation fields, although the schema already partially describes result_path and perturbation_pct.

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 tool sets up a one-at-a-time sensitivity analysis to rank parameter impact, with a specific method (varying each individually). The name and sibling tools make the purpose distinct from sweeps or optimization.

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 for sensitivity analysis but does not specify when to use this versus alternatives like cst_parameter_sweep or cst_optimizer. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided.

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