jevlab_calibrate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the return payload (holdout reliability and thresholds as JSON) and that it is a fitting/read-style computation, but says nothing about input constraints (1000-pair cap, 16-judge limit) or failure modes.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence: methods first, output second, zero filler. Every clause earns its place and the most important information is 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly summarizes the return payload, which is its main virtue. However, it omits the mutual exclusivity/priority of pairs vs fixture, the size limits, and any routing guidance against sibling tools, leaving real gaps for a 3-parameter nested-input tool.

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 67%, so the schema already documents pairs and fixture reasonably well; n_bins has no description in either place, and 'histogram scaling' only obliquely hints at it. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction details (e.g., fixture vs pairs precedence) beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action (fit calibration), the concrete methods (Platt, temperature, histogram scaling), and the deliverable (holdout reliability and thresholds as JSON). It is distinguishable from siblings like jevlab_bench or jevlab_bias_audit, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among jevlab_bias_audit, jevlab_bench, or jevlab_list_rubrics. The agent must infer from the name and parameter names alone that this is the calibration step.

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