phantom_fork

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the fork works on sealed sessions and returns a Fork ID with TIBET provenance, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the original session is modified), permission requirements, or potential failure modes. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose, followed by elaboration, use cases, and parameter descriptions. No wasted sentences; every part adds value.

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 has 4 parameters, 0% schema description, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: purpose, usage, parameters, and return value. It lacks error scenarios and deeper explanation of TIBET provenance, but is largely complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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%, meaning the schema only provides types and defaults. The description explains all four parameters, including examples for 'actor' and 'intent'. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could specify expected formats for session_id and intervention constraints.

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's purpose: 'Fork into a session — inject an intervention (multi-AI handoff).' It also provides a list of use cases, making it distinct from sibling tools like phantom_seal and phantom_sessions.

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 clear context: 'Any actor can inject a signed message into a sealed session.' It includes example use cases (correct AI mistakes, add context, human approval, cross-AI collaboration) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, which would improve it.

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