wavefunction-search

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

No annotations provided, and description fails to disclose side effects, permissions, or reversibility. 'Collapse' and 'weighted by stake' imply mutation but lack behavioral details.

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 sentence is concise but under-specified; lacks structure and essential details.

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?

Despite few parameters and an output schema, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to confidently select and invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and description only hints at 'stake' relevance for stake_amount but does not explain user_id or stake_amount beyond what schema names show.

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?

Description uses metaphorical language ('wavefunction', 'actionable commitment') without clarifying the concrete action or resource. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'intake' or 'find_matches'.

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 prerequisites or context for invocation.

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 discloses the tool returns capabilities and input contract but does not mention side effects, safety, or permissions. For an introspection tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's 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 no parameters, an existing output schema (which documents return values), and low complexity, the description is complete. It succinctly covers what the tool does without needing elaboration.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, as there are none.

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 'Return capabilities and input contract' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('return') and resource ('capabilities and input contract'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'collapse' or 'find_matches', which have different functions.

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 examining agent metadata but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or any exclusions. Given the tool's simplicity, the lack of guidelines is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'collapsed intention' but does not explain what that means, nor does it reveal side effects, authentication needs, or whether the tool modifies state. The ranking behavior is mentioned but not detailed.

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 efficiently states the core purpose. There is no extraneous information, and the key action and object are front-loaded.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lacks context on the matching process, constraints, the meaning of 'collapsed intention', and how the alignment score is determined. It is insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional understanding.

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 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the single parameter 'user_id' at all. No guidance on how to provide the user's intention or what this parameter represents.

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 action ('Match'), the resource ('user's collapsed intention to constitutionally-aligned agents/collectives'), and the output characteristic ('ranked by alignment score'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'describe_agent' or 'intake'.

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 like 'collapse' or 'describe_agent'. The description does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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 fully disclose behavior. It only mentions the transformation (distill) and input format, but omits side effects, persistence, authentication needs, or any constraints beyond the input.

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) and front-loads the main purpose. The second sentence provides a necessary format hint. Minor lack of structure (e.g., no separation of purpose and parameters) prevents a 5.

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 abstract concept ('intention wavefunction') and lack of annotations, more context would be beneficial. However, an output schema exists (not shown), so the omission of return value details is acceptable. The description is minimally adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It only partially describes the 'dialogue' parameter format ('[{role, content}, ...]') and provides no meaning for 'user_id'. For a 2-parameter tool, this is insufficient.

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 action ('distill') and resource ('user's dialogue into an intention wavefunction'), and is distinct from sibling tools. However, the term 'intention wavefunction' is jargon that may reduce clarity for some agents.

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, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The description simply states what the tool does without contextualizing its appropriate 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (register into match index) but does not explain side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or prerequisites. The list of included data is helpful but insufficient for full behavioral 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?

The description is a single sentence of 12 words, highly concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. The structure efficiently communicates the tool's primary 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 (6 parameters, output schema exists) and absence of annotations, the description covers the high-level action and key fields but lacks detail on prerequisites, the meaning of 'match index', and registration behavior. The output schema may compensate for return value documentation, but overall context remains somewhat incomplete.

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 add meaning beyond the schema. It names four of six parameters (mission, domain_profile, constitutional_scores, capacity) and provides contextual labels (e.g., 'domain profile', 'constitutional alignment scores'). However, it omits collective_id and name entirely, leaving their semantics unclear. This provides partial but incomplete parameter semantics.

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: registering an agent/collective into the match index. It specifies the key components (mission, domain profile, constitutional alignment scores, capacity) and uses a specific verb (register) with a clear resource (agent/collective). This differentiates it from sibling tools like describe_agent (descriptive) and find_matches (query).

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 when to use the tool (when registering a collective into the match index) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given, making the usage context implied rather than explicit.

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