ouroboros_session_signal_targets

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that advertised modes are valid direct requested modes, explains the one allowed fallback path (redirect with fallback_mode=after_turn only when after_turn is advertised), and states that shipped adapters do not support redirect/replace and that other unsupported requests fail closed. This gives an agent a clear understanding of the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 dense but each sentence adds essential information: the primary purpose, the validity of advertised modes, the explicit fallback path, and the failure behavior for unsupported requests. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and maintains a logical flow, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully conveys what the tool returns (a list of active AC attempts with their SessionSignal capabilities), and it goes beyond basic expectations by explaining fallback semantics and unsupported-request behavior. Given the tool's complexity (one parameter, discovery-oriented), the description is adequately complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The input schema already provides a clear description for the single parameter execution_id ('Execution ID returned by run/auto/evolve/ralph start or its job observer'), and the tool description does not add further parameter-level detail. With schema description coverage at 100%, the description does not need to compensate, and the baseline score 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 begins with 'List exact active AC attempts and each attempt's live SessionSignal capabilities for one execution before sending a signal,' which clearly states a specific action (List), resource (AC attempts and their SessionSignal capabilities), and scope (for one execution). This explicit verb+resource+scope structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like ouroboros_session_signal (sending signals) and ouroboros_session_status (session 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 phrase 'before sending a signal' clearly indicates when to use this tool, and the description provides detailed context around valid fallback paths and unsupported requests, guiding when to ask the user for clarification. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it just misses the highest bar.

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