get_statistical_reporting_check_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists the checks performed and includes a safety warning about input data. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or if there are any side effects, though the nature of a 'prompt' tool suggests it is safe.

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, focused paragraph with a clear structure: a line describing the purpose, a list of checks, and a safety warning. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's function and safety adequately. A minor gap is the lack of context on how the returned prompt should be used, but overall it is complete.

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 parameters 'results_text' and 'journal_or_style' are self-explanatory from their names, and the default for 'journal_or_style' is given as 'AMA'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds little beyond what is obvious, but the names are clear enough.

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 explicitly states the tool reviews results text for consistent and complete statistical reporting, listing specific checks such as effect size, 95% CI, p-value format, N per group, and statistical test. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that generate prompts for other academic tasks.

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 includes a data safety note ('Only input published or approved statistical results') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied through the specific checks mentioned, but no when-not-to-use or comparison with similar tools.

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