hipocampo_tune

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

With no annotations, the description solely informs that the tool adjusts thresholds and weights automatically, implying mutation. It fails to disclose potential side effects, required permissions, impact on existing settings, or safety considerations, which are critical for an agent to safely invoke a tuning operation.

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 consists of two short, clear sentences without any redundant information. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and an output schema (unknown content), the description covers the basic function and return type. However, it lacks context about what SSC means, which metrics are used, and safety implications, leaving gaps for an agent needing to decide on invocation, especially given the absence of annotations.

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 zero parameters, so the description need not explain them. However, it adds value by stating the return type (report of applied adjustments), which is not present in the schema. Given 100% schema coverage and no parameters, this exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 automatically adjusts thresholds and weights of the SSC based on accumulated metrics, using specific verbs and resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like hipocampo_health or hipocampo_stats, which could lead to confusion about when to use this tuning tool versus monitoring tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it operates on accumulated performance metrics but doesn't specify prerequisites, optimal conditions, or scenarios where it should be avoided, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.

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