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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool measures, not whether it is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or returns cached vs. live data. The minimal description does not fulfill the burden of behavioral disclosure for a sensing 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 a single sentence that directly states the core function. No wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient for an agent 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 no parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose but omits return format (e.g., does it return a string label like 'frozen' or a numeric score?). With sibling tools, more detail on expected output would enhance completeness for agent invocation.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter-level details, which is acceptable. The schema already documents all (nonexistent) parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not detract.

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 measures System of Thought Integration (SoTI) and detects zones (frozen/comfort/creative_edge). This provides a specific verb (measure/detect) and resource (SoTI zones). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools with similar naming patterns (e.g., 'phase-signal', 'signal-latest'), missing an opportunity to clarify uniqueness.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools (arena-signal, daily-brief, phase-signal, signal-latest) imply different signal types, but the description does not address context or exclusions. For a tool with no parameters, even basic usage context (e.g., 'Use this to assess current thinking state') would help.

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