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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a computation (calculate Robustness Index, project paths) but does not state whether it mutates inputs, requires specific data formats, or has side effects. No safety or reversibility information is provided, which is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has 6 parameters, all optional with defaults, and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how parameters influence the stress test, what 'hardened paths' means operationally, or what prerequisites exist (e.g., need for lattice_data). The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but input usage is unclear.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It vaguely references 'trajectories' and 'perturbations' but does not explicitly map to any of the six parameters (lattice_id, trajectory, step_budget, lattice_data, stress_amplitude, max_perturbations). No parameter-specific meaning is added beyond the schema's type and name.

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 action ('Subject candidate trajectories to adversarial algebraic perturbations'), the metric computed ('Robustness Index (R)'), and the output ('project hardened paths'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'cognitive.crucible_stress_test' by specifying the adversarial algebraic nature and the robustness metric.

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. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or when to prefer a different stress-test or lattice tool. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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