soul_activate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It says 'load relevant frameworks' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., state changes, persistence, conflicts with other tools). Vague 'load' lacks behavioral specifics.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The critical action and usage timing are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description does not explain what 'loading frameworks' entails (e.g., persisted state, return value, or required prior steps). With no output schema and no annotations, the agent lacks information on what to expect after 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'message'. The description in the schema already states 'The user's first message or a summary'. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond that, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 action 'Select and load relevant frameworks' and the resource 'for this conversation'. It specifies the usage context (after reading user's first message), distinguishing it from sibling tools like soul_framework (which might be a single framework) or soul_context.

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 explicitly says to call 'after reading the user's first message', providing clear timing. It does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling set and the tool's activation nature imply this is a first-step tool.

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