predict_step

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It hints at a read-only prediction mechanism ('prediction-error updated records') but does not state whether it has side effects, requires special permissions, or what the output format is. The lack of safety disclosure for a tool that could be read-only is a notable deficiency.

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, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose without any filler. Every word contributes value.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description leaves critical gaps: the meaning of 'step', when to use it relative to siblings, and expected output. It is minimally adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete given the ambiguous parameter and lack of alternatives.

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 0% and the description does not explain what the 'step' parameter should contain or its format. The tool name and description mention 'step', but no additional meaning is provided to help the agent construct a valid parameter value. This is a complete failure to compensate for schema gaps.

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 ('predict') and resource ('step's success probability'), with a mechanism ('outcome history with prediction-error updated records'). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling prediction tools like 'practice_forecast' or 'forecast', so it loses one point.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what it does, with no mention of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites. Given the large list of sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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