world-sense

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full burden. It discloses that the data is observed intensity, not a prediction, and mentions staleness checking, but lacks details on update frequency, data source, or limitations.

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, front-loaded with the key purpose, and every word adds value. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The description mentions the return includes volume, tone indices, and escalation stage, but lacks details on data structure, format, or additional fields. Since there is no output schema, the description should be more complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline is 3, and the description is clear about what the tool returns.

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 states it provides observed bilateral signal-intensity across seven country pairs, including volume and tone indices and escalation stage. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like arcane_overview or arcane_tracker.

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 suggests checking as_of/stale, indicating it provides current observed data, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool only serves present-state information and does not forecast, advise, or trade, which is valuable for safe usage. However, it does not mention read-only nature or other potential side effects.

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 extremely concise, consisting of only two sentences. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 absence of parameters, annotations, and output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and limitations adequately. It could be more complete by describing the format of the returned validation notes, but overall it is sufficient.

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 has no parameters, so the description is not required to provide parameter information. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there are no additional semantics needed.

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 states the tool's purpose: providing information about what ARCANE's World-Sense serves and does not serve, including per-stream validation notes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on capabilities and limitations.

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 explicitly states what the tool does not do (forecast, advise, trade), providing guidance on when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for related tasks.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It warns that 'some senses go silent when their baseline saturates' and advises checking staleness, providing useful behavioral context beyond a simple data retrieval. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but these are less critical for a read-only tool.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with key information ('Latest observations'), and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers what the tool returns, the caveat of silent saturation, and hints at freshness. It could be more detailed about data format, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information since there are none, and it already explains what the data contains.

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 states that the tool provides 'Latest observations from ARCANE's primary-source physical senses' and lists examples like energy stocks, fires, sanctions, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which have different names and presumably different purposes (e.g., arcane_bilateral, arcane_deltas).

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 implies usage for retrieving observed levels from physical senses and mentions checking freshness ('Check as_of/stale'), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools, nor does it state when not to use it.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that only observed diffs are shown, and that grounding-sense items fire once then go quiet, implying absence doesn't indicate calm. This adds meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Description is succinct with three sentences covering purpose, behavioral nuance, and a usage hint. No wasted words, though the hint 'Check as_of/stale' could be clearer.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and behavioral warning. However, it does not explain return format or structure, which would be needed for full completeness.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Baseline is 3 per rules for high coverage. Description adds no param info, but none is needed.

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 states the tool shows changes/diffs since yesterday across domains and senses. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'observed diffs only' and using the tool name 'arcane_deltas' which implies delta detection.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The hint 'Check as_of/stale' is vague and does not contrast with sibling tools like 'arcane_overview' or 'arcane_system_status'.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds key behavioral context: 'ARCANE NOTICES the present; it does not predict' and clarifies that news coverage measures unusualness, not truth or importance. This goes beyond schema.

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 sentences plus a brief note. Front-loaded with the core purpose. The note 'Check as_of/stale' is somewhat cryptic but maintains conciseness.

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?

No output schema; description compensates by listing output components (risk/momentum series, regime posterior, theme cards) and behavioral caveats. Staleness hint adds completeness, though could be more explicit.

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 one parameter described as 'Which domain to drill into.' The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns for a given domain, enhancing understanding of the parameter's effect.

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 'Drill-down' and clearly states the resource: one domain's risk/momentum series, regime posterior, and news-coverage theme cards. It distinguishes from siblings like arcane_overview (multi-domain) and arcane_deltas (changes).

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?

Implies usage for deep dive into a single domain, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. The note 'Check as_of/stale' hints at temporal considerations but lacks detail.

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?

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that it only shows the present and does not predict or advise. It also flags staleness as a limitation, which is sufficient for a read-only overview.

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 long, front-loading the most important information (what the tool shows) and adding a crucial usage note. Every sentence 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the key data provided (Combined Threat Score, per-domain risk, cascade state, cross-domain gauges) and advises on staleness, which is adequate for an overview 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 are no parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on them. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary param info.

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 states it provides a current ARCANE overview including Combined Threat Score, per-domain risk rows, cascade state, and cross-domain gauges. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on an overall snapshot rather than specific aspects.

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 advises checking as_of/stale before treating as current, implying usage for real-time state awareness. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the warning about staleness provides context.

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?

Despite no annotations, the description discloses that the tool is descriptive (not mutative), clarifies that weights are design configuration not fitted parameters, and mentions provenance tags and staleness checks. This provides good transparency beyond a simple 'explains composition'.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that immediately convey the purpose and add critical nuance about weights and staleness. Every sentence 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 no output schema, the description covers the key outputs (roll-ups, premiums, weights, provenance, staleness). It could be slightly more explicit about the output format, but for a 0-param tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 states the tool explains how the Combined Threat Score is composed, including per-domain roll-ups, premiums, weights, and provenance tags. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'arcane_domain' or 'arcane_overview' by focusing on composition details.

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 implies usage for understanding threat score composition and checking staleness ('Check as_of/stale'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'arcane_overview' or 'arcane_deltas'. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields and implies a safe read operation, but lacks details on potential costs, caching, or interpretation of the stale flag.

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 sentences, front-loaded with output description and usage context. No extraneous content.

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 parameterless status tool, the description covers purpose and usage. Lacks explicit mention of output structure or staleness semantics, but is adequate for a simple 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?

No parameters exist; baseline is 4 per rules. The description correctly adds no parameter info since none are needed.

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 states the tool returns freshness information (push time, source as_of, stale flag) for public ARCANE keys. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the phrase 'Call this before treating any reading as current' implies a preparatory role.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to call this tool before treating any reading as current. Does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for basic use.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool shows live state (not forecast), that completion is not probability, direction is resemblance not odds, and that ARCANE never states likelihood. It also notes staleness and advises checking 'as_of/stale', which adds important behavioral context.

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 moderately lengthy but front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains some repetition (e.g., 'NOT a forecast' appears twice), but overall each sentence adds value. The structure is logical: purpose, details, then caveats.

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?

The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description thoroughly covers what the tool returns and its semantics, including staleness, meaning of completion, direction, and what it does not provide. It is complete given the lack of other contextual fields.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter info. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description adds rich semantics about the output.

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 states it is a 'live scenario tracker' for pre-registered scenarios, detailing what it tracks: checkpoint completion as N/M, direction resemblance, staleness, and fork checkpoint status. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a forecast, which differentiates it from sibling tools like arcane_overview or arcane_deltas.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for tracking live state of pre-registered scenarios) and what it does not do (not a forecast, no probability). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly compare with sibling tools, though siblings are listed in context.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses non-forecast behavior, repair date, and lack of live exercise, adding transparency about staleness (as_of/stale). No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with main action and resource, then essential clarifications. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, data contents, temporal constraints, and caveats (repaired, not live). It is complete for an agent to decide whether to invoke this 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 are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds context about the returned data (stage activation, z-scores, chain health) but no parameter-specific info. Baseline 4 per guidelines for 0-parameter tools.

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 specifies the verb 'Observed' and resource 'multi-stage trigger-chain state for five domains', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like arcane_overview or arcane_system_status by focusing on trigger chains. It also clarifies the scope and temporal context (repaired, not exercised live).

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 explicitly states this is 'descriptive state only, not a forecast' and advises to 'Check as_of/stale', guiding agents to use it for current state observation rather than predictions. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the unique resource (trigger chains) makes usage clear.

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