assess_signal

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: token costs, caching (no re-charge), and charge/balance info in meta.tokens. It is consistent with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 (3 sentences), front-loaded with the main action, and efficiently conveys all necessary information without 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?

Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers input, cost, caching, and meta output. It lacks output format details but mentions token info in meta, which is adequate for an assessment tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining eventId's origin (from query_signals) and kind's default (quick). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 specifies a clear purpose: running an AI RS deep-dive assessment for a specific signal, including what to observe, sensors, and collection window. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_signals by requiring an eventId from that tool.

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 usage context: the eventId comes from query_signals, and it mentions token costs (5 or 15) and caching. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the context is sufficient.

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