Lumaion Continuity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the data is 'live,' it is aggregate-only, and it carries a privacy guarantee that no agent is named or ranked. It stops short of stating refresh cadence or rate limits.

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?

Two dense clauses, front-loaded with the core return value and immediately followed by the aggregate/privacy constraint. Every phrase carries information; nothing is restated from the title.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it names the three metric families plus the trend series. It leaves minor ambiguity about count formats and what 'probed hosts' means, but nothing that would cause a mis-call of this single-optional-parameter read tool.

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?

There is one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'include_trend' and its default. The description's 'with a daily trend' hints at the trend concept but never states it is optional or parameter-controlled, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema — 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the live, read-only Agent Continuity Index') and then enumerates exactly what the index contains: memory mentions, memory infrastructure counts, and A2A Agent Card adoption, with a daily trend. That level of specificity implicitly separates it from test-contract and proof-verification siblings, which do not return aggregate metrics.

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 only implied: the description tells the agent what the tool returns but never says when to reach for it versus the sibling tools, nor does it name an alternative for per-agent data. The caveat 'Aggregates only; no agent is named or ranked' does bound expectations and implicitly signals a when-not condition, which lifts it above a bare 2.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further, disclosing the actual workflow (Ed25519 identity, checkpoint, discard runtime, restore, server-signed proof verifiable offline) and the return payload (live contract plus one-file reference client), which is meaningful context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the subject and scope, followed by the workflow summary, the return value, and the exclusion. Two sentences carry a lot of information with little waste, though the workflow enumeration is dense enough to verge on overload.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming what is returned (the live contract and the reference client). It also clarifies the side-effect boundary ('Does not start a test'). The only gap is not relating this contract to the verify_continuity_proof sibling, which would complete the workflow picture.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies; no parameter-level detail is needed or missing.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Describes the voluntary Lumaion continuity self-test') and immediately clarifies scope with 'Does not start a test,' so an agent knows this is a contract-retrieval call, not an execution call. It does not name the sibling tools (get_continuity_index, verify_continuity_proof), so sibling differentiation is left to the tool name.

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 the audience statement ('an agent operator can run') and the negative constraint 'Does not start a test,' which rules out one misuse. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_continuity_index or verify_continuity_proof, so the agent must infer routing from names alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the description adds useful detail beyond the safety profile by explaining the verification steps and that proof_id must reference a PUBLISHED proof. It does not cover failure modes or return behavior, which keeps it from a top score.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the verification purpose and then give the input guidance. Every clause adds information about what is verified or how to invoke the tool, with no filler.

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?

For a read-only verification tool with a nested proof object and no output schema, the description covers the verification operations and accepted inputs well. It could be more complete by saying what a successful or failed verification returns, but the invocation context is adequately covered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the either/or input model and emphasizes that proof_id must reference a published proof, but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ("Verifies") plus a precise resource ("Lumaion Continuity Proof") and enumerates exactly what is checked: payload hash, Ed25519 signature, runtime delegations, and runtime change. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and easy to distinguish from the index/contract siblings.

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?

It clearly states the verification context (offline against published proof keys) and explains the two accepted input modes: a full proof object or a published proof_id. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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