crc_lnm_predict_multimodal

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

The description is nearly silent on behavioral traits. It says "locked" and "after compatibility gates," but does not explain side effects, prerequisites, failure modes, or whether the operation is deterministic or state-changing. With all annotations set to false, the description carries the full burden, and it provides almost no useful behavioral context.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains zero filler. It is efficient in structure, though it is quite sparse. Compared to a tautology like "Process," this has substantive content and is appropriately sized for what it conveys.

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 tool's complexity (multimodal ensemble, five required parameters, nested schemas, and an output schema), the description is far too minimal to provide adequate orientation. It omits prerequisites (e.g., prior QC and feature preparation), the need for same-workflow artifacts, and any guidance on failure modes. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the overall picture 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?

Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter semantics. It does not mention any of the required parameters (artifact IDs, clinical fields, request IDs, etc.) and adds no meaning beyond the schema. The schema itself contains some descriptions for nested objects, but the tool description is entirely silent on 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?

The description uses a specific verb "Run" and a clear resource "locked five-member multimodal ensemble," which unambiguously conveys that this tool executes the ensemble prediction model. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by implying it is the inference step after data preparation and before report generation, though it does not explicitly say "predict" or contrast with siblings.

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 phrase "after compatibility gates" provides an implied usage condition, indicating the tool should only be run once certain gates have passed. However, it does not name the gates or mention alternatives (e.g., when to use get_model_info or generate_report), and it offers no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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