origin_linear_fit

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'Run Origin linear fitting' without explaining whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, modifies the worksheet, or produces output. Key behavioral details are missing.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified. The single sentence does not convey essential information about the tool's operation or parameters, making it insufficient for effective use.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, output schema present), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the fitting process, output format, or how parameters like 'options' affect behavior, leaving major gaps.

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%, requiring the description to explain parameter meanings. The description does not reference any of the seven parameters (e.g., worksheet, x_col, y_col), leaving their roles and relationships entirely undocumented.

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 'Run Origin linear fitting' clearly states the action (Run) and the resource (linear fitting), accurately conveying the tool's purpose. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like origin_nonlinear_fit_structured, which perform similar but distinct operations.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as origin_nonlinear_fit_structured or origin_run_analysis. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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