run_abe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the view is 'replacing it in place', indicating a destructive mutation, which is critical. However, it does not mention potential side effects, reversibility, or any conditions under which the operation might fail. The single disclosed behavior is important but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and side effect. It is efficient with no wasted words. However, it could slightly expand on usage context without sacrificing conciseness, so it loses a point for being too terse in an area that matters.

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 mutates a view and has no output schema; the description covers the core action and side effect. Yet it lacks usage guidelines and differentiation from sibling tools, which are essential for an agent to decide when to use it. The information is adequate for a trivial call but incomplete for correct selection among similar tools.

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 100%, so each parameter (view_id, tolerance, poly_degree) already has a textual description. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context for these parameters beyond the schema. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high and the description does not enrich the semantics.

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 runs AutomaticBackgroundExtractor (ABE) on a view and replaces it in place, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like run_per_channel_abe (which processes per channel) and run_bxt (a different background extraction tool). The action and scope are unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use ABE versus alternatives such as run_bxt, run_gradient_correction, or run_background_neutralization. It does not mention prerequisites, intended context, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine when this tool is preferred over its siblings.

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