generate_schema_template

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, cost, limitations (e.g., no randomness, output format details), or if the tool is deterministic.

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 that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary; there is no fluff.

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 three unparameterized parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the generated template contains, how to use it, or how it relates to Meridian benchmarking. A more complete description would improve usability.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the three parameters (n_geos, n_weeks, n_channels). Their purpose, allowed values, or impact on the output are entirely missing, forcing the agent to guess or default.

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 generates a synthetic benchmarking CSV schema template in Meridian's input format. It is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings, though it could briefly note why one would need a benchmarking schema template.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like synthesize_meridian_code or calculate_bayesian_prior. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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