run_bxt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the functional modes (PSF correction vs. sharpening) but does not state whether the operation modifies the view in-place, is reversible, requires specific image conditions, or what the tool returns. It omits side effects and any state changes, which is a significant gap for a process tool.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter clarification is concise. Every word earns its place, and the structure is efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves important gaps: it does not mention the adjust_star_halos parameter (though the schema covers it), does not state what happens to the view (in-place modification?), whether processing is destructive, or what the expected return value is. An agent would need to infer too much to use this confidently.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the conditional relationship: correct_only applies PSF correction without sharpening, and otherwise the sharpen parameters control strength. This helps the agent understand how the boolean and numbers interact, exceeding the schema's isolated definitions.

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 BlurXTerminator on a view, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_sxt (StarXTerminator) and run_nxt by specifying the exact process. It also names the key mode (correct_only) and the sharpening parameters, making the purpose 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 provides guidance on when to use correct_only versus the sharpening controls, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives such as run_sxt, run_nxt, or other processing tools. There is no exclusion or alternative recommendation, leaving some usage ambiguity in a tool list with many similar process tools.

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