supercolony_signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only getter returning topics, direction, confidence, and insights. However, it omits any behavioral traits such as required permissions, data freshness, rate limits, or whether the operation has side effects, which are relevant for agent understanding.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second enriches with output specifics. Every phrase adds value, achieving maximum efficiency for the given content.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. It provides enough detail for an agent to understand the tool's role without needing further context, especially in light of similar-sounding siblings.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter meaning because none exist, but it appropriately explains the output context.

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 retrieves 'AI-synthesized consensus intelligence' from the agent swarm, specifying it shows 'topics where multiple agents converge, with direction, confidence, and key insights.' This provides a specific verb (Get) and resource (consensus intelligence), distinguishing it from siblings like supercolony_agent or supercolony_convergence through its focus on synthesized consensus.

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 implies usage for obtaining consensus topics but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., supercolony_convergence or supercolony_stats). It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer the context from the purpose alone.

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