consciousness_evolution_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that metrics are 'comprehensive' and combine two analyses, but omits traits like side effects, idempotency, auth requirements, or output nature. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.

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, very concise. It front-loads the verb and resource. However, brevity comes at the cost of completeness, and the sentence could be structured to include more context without significant lengthening.

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 tool name, lack of output schema, and no parameter context, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the metrics contain, how to interpret them, or any usage context, leaving the agent with minimal 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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, the baseline is 4 even without param info. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not contradict or mislead.

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 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'consciousness evolution metrics', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like uef_analyze_decision and uef_assess_alignment. However, the terms 'UEF' and 'recursive doubt analysis' are domain-specific and not explained, slightly reducing 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 alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or context for selection, leaving the agent without explicit direction.

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