wavefunction-search

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only hints at creating a 'commitment weighted by stake.' There is no mention of side effects, required permissions, or what happens to the user's state.

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, which is concise, but its vagueness undermines conciseness. Every word should inform, but here 'wavefunction' adds confusion without clarity.

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 lack of parameter descriptions and no behavioral clues, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. Even though an output schema exists, the input side is left entirely unexplained.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameter meanings. However, it does not mention the required 'user_id' or provide details about 'stake_amount' beyond 'weighted by stake.' This leaves agents without needed context.

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 vague metaphor ('collapse the user's wavefunction') without clarifying what the tool actually does. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'intake' or 'register_collective', leaving the purpose ambiguous.

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. The description omits any context about prerequisites, conditions, or complementary tools.

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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns capabilities and input contract, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on state modification, security, or side effects. The description is adequate but could be more explicit about safety.

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 short sentence starting with a verb, wasting no words. It is maximally concise while still conveying the core purpose.

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 is simple with no parameters and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks a note about being safe/read-only, which would enhance completeness. Overall, it is nearly complete for this tool's complexity.

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% trivially (0 parameters). Description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline 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 a clear verb 'Return' and specifies the resource as 'capabilities and input contract'. However, the resource is somewhat abstract and not explicitly tied to the agent's own introspection, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 its siblings (collapse, find_matches, intake, register_collective). There is no mention of context or alternatives.

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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read/write nature, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The ranking mention is a hint but insufficient.

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 with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resources. However, it could benefit from slight structuring (e.g., listing key aspects).

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return values. However, the tool involves ranking and constitutional alignment, which may require more context for correct invocation. It adequately covers the core behavior but lacks depth.

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 one parameter (user_id) with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not elaborate on what user_id represents or how it affects the match, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('match') and clearly identifies the resources ('user's collapsed intention' to 'constitutionally-aligned agents/collectives'). It also mentions the output is ranked, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'register_collective' or 'describe_agent'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without usage direction.

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 are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the processing of dialogue into intentions but does not specify side effects, authorization needs, or data persistence. This lack of detail leaves the agent without essential operational 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. It is concise and avoids redundancy, though it uses jargon ('intention wavefunction') that may reduce clarity. Nonetheless, it efficiently communicates the core function.

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 (processing dialogue into structured output), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format despite the presence of an output schema. Key aspects like the meaning of 'confidence' or the structure of 'intention wavefunction' are missing. The agent would need additional context to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the 'dialogue' parameter format but omits the 'user_id' parameter entirely. The explanation of 'dialogue' as '[role, content]' maps to the schema, but lacks depth (e.g., allowed roles or content types). Insufficient for an agent to correctly construct the arguments.

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: to distill user dialogue into an intention wavefunction with explicit intentions and confidence. The verb 'distill' is specific and the resource is well-defined. The output concept is unique among siblings like collapse or describe_agent, making it distinct.

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 versus siblings. The description does not provide contextual cues, prerequisites, or exclusions. It merely states the function without any usage recommendations.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'register' without disclosing whether it creates or updates, what happens on duplicates, authorization needs, or side effects. Minimal transparency.

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?

Single concise sentence front-loaded with the verb. No waste; every word contributes.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is too brief. It doesn't explain return values, prerequisites, or how parameters interact. Sibling 'intake' might be related but no differentiation.

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 description must compensate. The description lists parameter concepts ('mission', 'domain profile', etc.) but adds no deeper meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not explain formats or constraints (e.g., domain_profile is a map).

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 verb 'register' and the resource 'agent/collective into the match index', and lists the components (mission, domain profile, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'describe_agent' and 'find_matches', but the term 'match index' could be clarified.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'intake' or 'update'). The description does not mention prerequisites or contextual cues for usage.

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