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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description does not add any behavioral traits beyond this, such as return format, processing behavior, or limitations. It only restates the analytical focus, which falls short of disclosing additional 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without filler. It is concise and every word contributes to the message, though it may be too terse for complex functionality.

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 (5 parameters, 2 required, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling tools, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'phase coherence' means, what the output looks like, or how it relates to other waveguard tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for all five parameters, covering 100% of them. The description adds no additional meaning about how parameters interact or influence results, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Measure' with specific objects 'coherence/entropy' and 'collapse-risk indicators' for 'candidate data', clearly indicating the tool's analytic function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like waveguard_cascade_risk, which also addresses collapse risk, so it's clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 like waveguard_instability or waveguard_cascade_risk. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context clues about typical use cases beyond the general 'candidate data' phrase.

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