alphaledger

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

No annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that a trial is recorded (a state-mutating side effect) and enumerates the statistical outputs, but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, or what 'family-adjusted verdict' means operationally.

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?

Three tight sentences with purpose front-loaded, then return values, then positioning. No filler, though the return-value sentence is dense and could be enumerated more legibly.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned statistics, which is its main strength. But for a 7-parameter, nested-object tool it leaves the trial/family concept and five parameters undefined, so an agent cannot fully reason about the call.

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 only 29%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning at all. Five parameters (expr, alpha, label, horizon, with_gate) are undocumented in both schema and description, including the horizon and the gate behavior that materially change the result.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Measure one factor and record it as a trial') and names what it produces. It gestures at differentiation via 'the only supported way to produce evidence,' implying fingerprint/gate are not evidence producers, but never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'This is the only supported way to produce evidence' gives a positive usage cue, and 'record it as a trial' implies the ledger/family context. However there is no when-not guidance, no named alternative, and no prerequisites (e.g., what must exist before evaluating).

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the single most important behavioral trait here: this operation does not consume a trial budget, i.e. it is a non-mutating lookup. It also previews the return fields. It omits error behavior, whether anything is written to the ledger, and cost/limits for large inline panels.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition (identity without trial cost), followed by return shape and then the call-to-action. No filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description steps up by naming the three return values (fingerprint, seen status, position). Still missing enough to be fully complete for a 4-param nested tool: it does not explain 'position', 'horizon', or what happens when the ledger has not seen the factor.

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 75% and the nested factor/forward/horizon descriptions already explain panel format, path resolution, and the panel-scoping rationale. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond a vague 'already counted' notion. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Identify a factor') plus a scope constraint ('WITHOUT consuming a trial') and enumerates the return contents. Sibling differentiation is only implicit — it never names 'evaluate', though the 'without consuming a trial' contrast points at it.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this before writing new factor code to avoid re-testing something already counted.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, but no when-not condition or named alternative (e.g. use evaluate when you actually want to test) is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states whether re-judging is a read-only computation or whether a new verdict is persisted to the ledger, nor does it describe error behavior when the fingerprint is stale or unknown. For an operation whose name suggests a decision gate, this ambiguity about side effects is a real gap.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose first, then usage context. No filler, and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only one of two parameters documented, the description should do more — notably explain what the re-judged result contains and whether state changes. It covers purpose and timing adequately but leaves behavioral completeness thin.

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 50%: 'fp' is documented in the schema as the fingerprint from evaluate, but 'alpha' has only numeric bounds and a default. The description partially compensates by clarifying that alpha is optional and re-sets the significance threshold ('optionally at a different alpha'), adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Re-judge') and resource ('an already-recorded trial against its family'), which is far more informative than the opaque name 'gate'. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling 'evaluate' by specifying that the trial is already recorded, but never names or contrasts the siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives concrete triggering conditions: 'after importing more trials' and 'to ask how much better would this need to be'. That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it offers no when-not-to-use or explicit pointer to 'evaluate' vs 'gate'.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the analytical dimensions returned (repeat counts, sign flips, cluster duplicates, error rate), implying a read-only aggregation, but says nothing about output format, scoring semantics (e.g. what 'cross-family' means), or cost.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the intent and enumerates the metrics. Somewhat flowery phrasing ('going in circles') costs a little precision but the sentence is compact and earns its length.

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 zero-param, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it tells the agent what the tool reports. It stops short of clarifying how to interpret 'cross-family' or the return shape, which would fully close the gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 names concrete metrics (repeated evaluations, sign flips, near-duplicate clusters, cross-family error rate), which tells the agent this is a reporting/aggregation tool over some ledger. However, the framing 'how much has been tried, and where the session is going in circles' is impressionistic, and it never states a clear verb+resource or distinguishes itself from siblings like evaluate or gate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus fingerprint, evaluate, or gate, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the metric list.

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