qc_straightlining

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the one-line description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden but only states the flagging action. It does not disclose side effects, output behavior, read-only status, or required inputs beyond variables, so an agent has limited understanding of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it quick to parse. The repeated tool name prefix is mildly redundant, and the brevity leaves substantial context to the schema, but the structure itself is clean.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, a one-line description is not complete enough. The x_suso_qc metadata supplies some requirements and output contract, but the description does not help an agent decide how to populate plan, rules, thresholds, or export_path, nor does it navigate the large sibling QC toolset.

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 50%, and the description adds little meaning for the undocumented parameters such as plan, rules, profile, confirm_plan_id, and questionnaire_identity. It merely reinforces the variable-type constraint already present in the schema metadata and does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb (Flag) and a precise resource (repeated identical answers across selected ordinal/categorical variables), which clearly identifies the straightlining concept. This also differentiates it from siblings like qc_logical_consistency and qc_response_distribution_shift without requiring schema inspection.

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 the tool is for detecting straightlining but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over other QC siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it; supporting constraints like minimum data and supported variable types live only in schema metadata.

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