Ops Measure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the behavioral profile is clear. The description adds 'check system health' which is consistent but does not provide additional context about consequences, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It adds minimal value beyond 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 short but includes a list of modes that is inaccurate compared to the schema's enum. This wastes the agent's time and introduces confusion. It could be more concise and accurate by simply matching the schema.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the purpose and expected behavior of the many mode options (e.g., 'genius', 'psi_le', 'omega') and the role of parameters like 'estimate'. The tool is moderately complex with 5 parameters, and the description is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only partially lists modes (not matching the enum) and does not describe the other parameters like 'estimate', 'session_id', 'actor_id', or '_envelope'. The agent lacks meaning for the majority of parameters.

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?

Description states 'Check system health...' which provides a clear verb-resource, but the listed modes in the description (including 'predict', 'stack_health', 'budget') do not match the enum in the input schema (which includes 'genius', 'psi_le', 'omega', 'landauer' instead). This inconsistency reduces clarity and could mislead the agent.

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 says 'Use for operational status and metabolic monitoring', implying a context, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to sibling tools like 'arif_kernel_health' or 'arif_sense_observe'. The guidance is minimal and implied.

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