ouroboros_ac_tree_hud

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool is a live, read-only snapshot and indicates the output format, which is useful. However, it does not disclose cursor-advance behavior, potential side effects, or failure modes, leaving some ambiguity around the 'cursor' parameter.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word earns its place, and it conveys the essential purpose and output format without padding.

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?

For a simple read-only snapshot tool, the description combined with the schema provides adequate completeness. The return value is described as a markdown snapshot, and all parameters are documented. However, the lack of any mention of error conditions or cursor semantics slightly limits completeness given the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, and the input schema already explains all four parameters including their defaults and meanings. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a render-ready markdown snapshot of the live acceptance-criteria tree for a session, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from generic status tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'ouroboros_ac_dashboard'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context for appropriate scenarios, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Return', leaving the agent to infer when this snapshot is preferred over dashboard or status tools.

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