pipeline_rd

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it sequences the underlying estimators, returns a markdown report, a result_id, and an image content block, and implies the pipeline is a combined operation. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 two sentences with no filler. The workflow is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the output contract is given exactly in the second sentence. Every piece of text 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?

Given the rich schema, output schema presence, and annotations, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context: pipeline purpose, composed steps, and return format. It does not explain chaining behavior via result_id in detail, but the schema already documents as_handle and result_id.

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 90%, and parameter descriptions in the schema are already detailed (x, y, c, fuzzy, detail, as_handle, data_path, etc.). The tool description itself adds little parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly explains what the tool does: it runs a full RD pipeline with named steps (rdrobust, rdplot, rddensity, rdsensitivity) and states the exact output format. This distinguishes it from individual RD tools like rdrobust or rddensity and from other pipelines like pipeline_did.

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?

Usage is implied by 'End-to-end RD workflow' — an agent can tell this is for full regression-discontinuity analysis rather than a single sub-estimator. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this pipeline over individual tools or when not to use it, so the guidance is only implicit.

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