me.coaching_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds an authentication note ('Auth: Bearer <token>') but does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits, or output structure). With no parameters, minimal additional context is needed, but more could be said about what 'stages' entails.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loades the action and condition, making it easy to scan.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it could briefly mention what 'stages' are or reference related principles for better context.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since no params exist). The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline 4 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('stages') with a clear condition ('evidence is thin relative to principle requirements'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'principles.list' (lists all principles) and 'me.add_evidence' (adds evidence), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 when evidence is thin but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'me.learning_path' or 'principles.list'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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