get_behavioral_sequence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's core behavior: 'Shows the first 10 tool calls after passport issuance.' It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or edge cases. The additional context 'Real agents do work. Farming agents extract.' describes agent behavior, not tool behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded with the main function, then adds context. It is concise with no obvious waste, though phrases like 'consilium signal #2' and the agricultural metaphors may be slightly cryptic for an agent. It earns each sentence's place, but could be more direct.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what it returns (behavioral sequence) and its scope (first 10 tool calls after passport issuance). It does not specify the exact return format, but for low-complexity tools this is acceptable. The context about distinguishing real vs farming agents adds interpretive value.

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%: the only parameter, agent_id, is described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating 'for an agent,' which is already in the schema. With high schema coverage, a 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's function: 'Get the post-issuance behavioral sequence for an agent.' It specifies the exact scope ('first 10 tool calls after passport issuance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_profiles or get_task_detail. This is a specific verb+resource+scope formulation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by explaining its purpose: 'Real agents do work. Farming agents extract. This is consilium signal #2.' This implies it is used to distinguish authentic agents from farming agents. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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