rdhte_lincom

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond 'compute'—no mention of caching (as_handle), no side-effect notes, no performance or constraints. With the annotation present, the description contributes nothing extra about behavior.

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 sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, and the key operation is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a tool whose parameter details live in the schema.

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 100% schema coverage, read-only annotations, and an output schema, most structural information is already provided. The description covers the core purpose, but it omits usage context—such as when to chain this after rdhte or how to specify weights—which an agent would need to infer from sibling tool names or the parameter descriptions.

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 coverage is 100% with meaningful descriptions for all 9 parameters (e.g., 'Result from rdhte()', 'Must have length equal to the number of evaluation points in result.detail'). The description itself adds no parameter information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Compute a weighted linear combination of CATE estimates' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from rdhte (which estimates CATEs) and generic lincom (which may apply to any coefficients). It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the scope is concrete enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rdhte, lincom, or other post-estimation functions. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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