insanitii_world_reactivity_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Verify' plus the 'report' suffix reasonably imply a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the zero-argument example reinforces that. However, nothing is stated about side effects, the nature of the returned report, or any external state it reads. With zero annotation coverage, the description should disclose more than it does.

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 compact: a single purpose sentence, a KB reference, and a working example. The example is genuinely useful for a zero-arg tool since it demonstrates invocation syntax. The KB line ('KB: see knowledge_base/10_WORLD_BUILDING.md#overview') is slightly cryptic as a bare path without context, but it does not waste words. Minor deduction for the obscure KB formatting.

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 zero-parameter, report-style verification tool that has an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is verified, where to find supporting knowledge, and how to invoke it. The output schema presumably documents the return format, so the description need not repeat it. Adequate for a no-arg report, though the KB reference and the meaning of 'director wiring' 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description confirms the zero-arg invocation with an explicit example call (insanitii_world_reactivity_report()). There is nothing further the description needs to explain about parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Verify') and a specific resource ('Insanitii Day 1 reactive world actor tagging and director wiring'), which clearly distinguishes it from the many other insanitii_* report tools in the sibling list (e.g., audio_feedback, phase1_readiness, save_load). The terminology is somewhat project-specific jargon, but the KB pointer helps resolve that. Loses a point because the purpose relies on understanding internal concepts rather than being self-contained.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus the sibling insanitii_* reports. It never states conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. The verification intent is implied by 'Verify' and the report suffix, but no explicit selection criteria are given. Among ~10 sibling insanitii report tools, this is a notable gap.

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