stata_do

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, return behavior, or consequences. 'Prepare and execute a project-local run' is the entire description and gives the agent no insight into what happens when invoked.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the deprecated warning and communicates the basic action efficiently, though this conciseness contributes to the under-specification penalized in other dimensions.

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 tool's 7 parameters, a complex AnalysisScope schema, a non-trivial output schema, and 21 sibling tools, this one-sentence description is grossly inadequate. It provides none of the context needed for an agent to select or invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Parameters like dofile_path, plan_scope, and timeout_seconds are left entirely undocumented, and the description makes no effort to compensate for the schema's lack of explanations.

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 states 'Deprecated: prepare and execute a project-local run,' which provides a verb and resource but is vague. It does not explicitly mention Stata or explain what 'prepare' means, and the deprecated flag is confusing without an alternative. It only weakly distinguishes from siblings via the deprecated label.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool or what to use instead. The 'Deprecated' label implies it should not be used, but it does not point to run_prepare/run_execute or any other alternative, leaving the agent without actionable usage direction.

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