wisdom_strategic_timing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'assesses' timing using principles, but doesn't describe what the assessment entails (e.g., returns a recommendation, score, or analysis), potential side effects, or any constraints like rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (assessing timing with principles), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and usage but lacks details on behavior, return values, or deeper context. This is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent.

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, with one parameter 'action' documented as 'The action or decision you're considering timing'. The description doesn't add any further meaning beyond this, such as examples or format details. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Assess whether now is the right time for action using Musashi's timing principles.' It specifies the verb ('assess'), resource ('timing'), and methodology ('Musashi's timing principles'), making it distinct from siblings like 'wisdom_clarify' or 'wisdom_stoic_dichotomy'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'wisdom_strategic_five_rings', which might also involve strategic principles, leaving some ambiguity.

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 usage: 'Use when deciding whether to act now or wait.' This gives a specific scenario (timing decisions) and implies alternatives (acting vs. waiting). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., 'wisdom_mindful_pause' for pausing), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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