hebbrix_confidence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses that the tool returns a confidence score and recommended action, and explains the special `constraint_conflict` behavior with a concrete example (PR line limit). It does not explicitly state whether the tool mutates state, but the 'ask' framing implies a non-destructive read-like operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare tool name.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives usage guidance, and the third explains the return. The additional paragraph about numeric rule violations is specific and earns its place. No verbose filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 moderate complexity, no annotations, and an output schema that likely documents return fields, the description covers purpose, usage, and a key edge case well. However, it omits any explanation of the `collection_id` parameter and does not mention potential side effects or prerequisites. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke with full confidence across all optional arguments.

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 compensate. It implies the `query` parameter is a description of the proposed action, but it never explicitly documents either parameter. The optional `collection_id` is completely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on when or how to set it. This is a meaningful gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 clear purpose: 'Ask how confident the agent should be before acting on something, grounded in stored memory and past decision outcomes.' It specifies the resource (memory and decision outcomes), the action (returns a confidence score and recommended action), and distinguishes this from siblings like hebbrix_search or hebbrix_ask by focusing on pre-action confidence assessment.

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 gives an explicit usage context: 'Call this before a consequential autonomous action.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the instruction clearly differentiates when this tool is appropriate compared to general memory or search tools. This is strong guidance, though it could be more explicit about when not to use it.

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