run_gradient_correction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'removes' a background gradient, which implies mutation, but it does not state whether the view is modified in place, whether the operation is reversible, or what prerequisites exist.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and purpose. It contains no filler, repetition of schema details, or unnecessary context.

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 simple one-parameter tool the description is minimal, but with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves important operational context uncovered. It does not explain side effects, relationship to alternative gradient-correction tools, or required view state, so an agent could invoke it in the wrong context.

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?

The input schema already documents the single parameter view_id with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run GradientCorrection on a view to remove a background gradient.' It clearly identifies the operation and its intended outcome. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like run_abe or run_per_channel_abe that also address background gradients.

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 'to remove a background gradient' provides an implied usage context. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and no alternatives are named despite many sibling tools that may overlap in purpose.

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