aga_trigger_measurement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'trigger a measurement' and 'generate a receipt,' implying a write operation with side effects, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or what the receipt contains. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('trigger a measurement') and outcome ('generate a receipt'). There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the measurement process, receipt format, error conditions, or how parameters interact (e.g., whether 'subject_content' or hashes are required). For a tool that likely performs a significant operation, this leaves critical gaps.

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 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the description must compensate but doesn't mention any parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which already documents 'subject_content,' 'subject_bytes_hash,' and 'subject_metadata_hash' well. The baseline is 3 since schema coverage is moderate, but the description fails to clarify undocumented parameters like 'measurement_type' or 'subject_metadata.'

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 states the tool 'trigger[s] a measurement of subject content and generate[s] a receipt,' which provides a clear verb+resource combination ('trigger measurement' + 'subject content'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'aga_measure_subject' or 'aga_measure_behavior,' leaving ambiguity about its specific role within the broader measurement system.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'aga_measure_subject' and 'aga_measure_behavior' that seem related to measurement, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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