calibrate_threshold

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool sweeps a range and reports a tradeoff, implying read-only analysis, but it does not explicitly state side effects, return format, or whether any state is mutated. This is a moderate amount of behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences with no fluff. Every sentence adds value: the first states the function, the second gives usage guidance. It is efficiently front-loaded.

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 complexity is high: 5 parameters, a nested 'fields' object, no output schema, and low schema coverage. The description does not explain parameter semantics, return structure, or how 'high_stakes' affects behavior. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's inputs and outputs.

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 only 20% (only 'high_stakes' has a description). The tool description does not compensate by explaining parameters like 'fields', 'low', 'high', or 'step'. It only alludes to a range conceptually, which is insufficient for agents to correctly construct inputs.

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 verb 'Sweep' clearly indicates the action, and 'confidence threshold across a range' specifies the resource. 'Report how review load trades against errors' defines the output. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'evaluate_fields', so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 states 'Use this to choose a bar deliberately rather than accepting a default', which gives a clear when-to-use context. It does not mention when not to use it or any alternative tools, so exclusions are missing.

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