credence_bandit_status

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

The description discloses the threshold condition (requires 100 sessions for learning) and the return fields. As a read-only status tool, no destructive hints are needed. No annotations existed to contradict, but some details like permissions or rate limits are omitted.

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, using three lines to cover purpose, conditions, and returns. It is front-loaded with the key concept and uses a clear structured list for outputs.

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 no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's function, conditions, and return format. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

No parameters exist, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info. It effectively explains the tool's behavior without parameter details.

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 it returns 'adaptive compression threshold status' using Thompson sampling bandit, with specific conditions (learned vs static defaults). It distinguishes from siblings like 'credence_scan' or 'credence_verify' by focusing on compression threshold status.

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 purpose implies usage for checking bandit status, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'credence_project_status' or 'credence_memory_snapshot'. No conditions for when not to use are stated.

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