linear_forecast

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only', which is useful, but it does not mention assumptions (e.g., column must be numeric), handling of missing values, or potential errors. It also does not clarify what the output contains beyond 'forecast future periods'. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence with no redundancy or fluff, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise and to the point. However, it might be slightly too terse given the missing parameter details, but as a concise statement it earns its place.

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 tool has 4 parameters (3 required), no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema that presumably describes returns. Despite this, the description fails to explain the file/sheet context, the meaning of 'periods', or any constraints. It is far from complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool with the right arguments and expectations.

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 0%, meaning property names are the only clue. The description only vaguely references 'a column' and 'future periods', which maps to 'column' and 'periods', but it gives no explanation for 'file_path' or 'sheet_name', nor does it clarify the format or type of the 'column' parameter. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Fit a linear trend') and resource ('a column'), and specifies the action ('forecast future periods'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ml_forecast' by explicitly naming the linear approach. The 'Read-only' note adds an important trait. This is a clear, distinct purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ml_forecast' or 'rolling_average'. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions under which a different tool would be preferable. The only implicit hint is 'linear', but no explicit comparison or selection criteria are given.

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