prereg_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and actually discloses a concrete behavior: returns UNFALSIFIABLE when the finding or null can never fire over declared supports, and requires preregister. It does not state the return value when the rule is falsifiable, which is a minor gap.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: when to use, what it returns, and the dependency. No filler or repetition.

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?

Parameters are fully covered by the schema, but there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should define the full return contract. It details only the UNFALSIFIABLE case and leaves the falsifiable outcome implicit, which is a meaningful gap for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents decision_rule and metrics. The description only adds the term 'declared metric supports' and does not go beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('check') and resource ('decision rule') and describes the falsifiability criterion ('CAN come out both ways'). The UNFALSIFIABLE return and prerequisite set it apart from the sibling check/audit tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Before running an experiment', giving clear temporal context for when to call it. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context plus the distinct UNFALSIFIABLE outcome makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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