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 scope (first 10 tool calls after issuance) and hints at its analytical purpose (consilium signal), but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any authentication requirements. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 brief (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, though the third sentence ('Real agents do work...') is slightly cryptic. Overall, it is well-structured and concise.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: what it retrieves, when it is relevant (post-issuance, first 10 calls), and its purpose (distinguishing agent behavior). It is slightly lacking in explaining the return format, but overall complete for a query tool.

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 100% description coverage for its single parameter (agent_id). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 clearly states 'Get the post-issuance behavioral sequence for an agent', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It further distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting it shows the first 10 tool calls after passport issuance, differentiating it from other 'get_' tools like get_passport_grade or get_task_detail.

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 hints at usage context with 'Real agents do work. Farming agents extract.', suggesting the tool helps identify agent types, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use it, nor does it name alternative tools. The phrase 'consilium signal #2' implies it is part of a set but provides no comparison.

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