characterize_module

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

No annotations provided; the description discloses return format (list of CharacterizationResult or error dict) and error handling behavior (non-aborting), adding useful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 short sentences front-loading purpose and key behavior; no unnecessary words.

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?

Explains purpose and return format, but for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks parameter details and output structure, making it incomplete for correct usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no explanation for any of the 7 parameters, leaving the agent to infer their meanings from names alone.

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 it generates characterization tests for every pure top-level function in a module, distinguishing it from sibling tools like characterize_function (single function) and characterize_method (methods).

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 implies usage for testing all pure top-level functions at once, and mentions that failures don't abort the call, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not conditions.

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