aoci_header

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine side effect — it does not modify formal cognition or Baseline but may append a local audit record — which is useful. It still omits what the response actually looks like and any permission or scoping requirements, and the Header/Meta sentence is too vague to substitute.

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 sentences, no filler, and the resource list is front-loaded. But the middle sentence is dense, unexplained jargon that consumes space without conveying a checkable fact, so brevity here is not the same as clarity.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must explain what comes back and how it differs from aoci_rules. It gestures at return shapes ('Header', 'Meta with Root identity') but in terms a caller cannot act on, leaving the return value and sibling differentiation unresolved.

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 for the description to document beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline 4 applies.

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 verb 'Read' and a resource list are present, but 'shared object rules, tag dictionaries, and calibration examples' is undefined jargon, and the second sentence ('Legacy returns its Header; Volumes v1 returns Meta with Root identity...') is opaque rather than clarifying. Nothing distinguishes it from sibling aoci_rules or aoci_overview, so an agent cannot tell which one to pick.

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?

'Call only when these rules are not already reliable or need a separate check' gives a negative condition and a re-check trigger, which is real guidance. However, it never names aoci_rules or aoci_overview as the default alternative, so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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