soul_self_evaluate

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any side effects, persistence, or access requirements. It is unclear whether the evaluation is stored, who can see it, or if it affects future behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by a concrete example. Every sentence serves a clear function with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate guidance for usage and format. However, it omits any information about return value or side effects, which might be relevant for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 description is clear and concise, but the tool description adds significant value with an example of what constitutes a good summary ('Response used 450 words' vs 'bad response'), which guides the agent beyond the schema alone.

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 records a self-evaluation of a complex response, with a concrete example differentiating good vs bad summaries. It distinguishes from sibling tools like soul_reflect and soul_read.

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 provides an implicit guideline to be descriptive, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like soul_reflect or memory_journal. No when-not conditions are mentioned.

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