voltage_reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds value by explaining the content structure and the purpose of each section, which helps the agent understand what the tool actually returns. However, it does not disclose any potential caveats (e.g., response size, format specifics), though those may be covered by the output schema. The added context justifies a score slightly above baseline.

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 efficiently organized: a one-line purpose, then a bulleted list of sections with clear labels and explanations. It front-loads the main instruction and uses formatting to allow fast scanning. No sentence is redundant; each adds useful detail about content or usage.

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 reference tool, the description covers all essential information: what it returns, when to call it, what each section contains, and even contextual reading order. The read-only behavior is covered by annotations, and the output format is presumably defined by the output schema (present signal). Nothing necessary for an agent to select and invoke this tool is missing.

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 explain the 'section' parameter. It does so comprehensively by listing each enum value and its meaning, and even offers reading-order guidance (e.g., 'Read this second', 'Read this if...'). This fully compensates for the schema gap, making the parameter self-documenting.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and a resource ('everything needed to author and iterate on a run'), then enumerates the sections returned. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., voltage_execute_burst, voltage_validate_playbook) by being a reference/documentation tool, not an execution or validation tool.

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 explicitly says 'Call this before your first Playbook,' giving a clear when-to-use directive. It also provides conditional reading order (e.g., 'Read this if bursts are coming out one action at a time') and labels like 'the learning loop,' which help an agent decide which section to request. This is strong, situation-specific guidance.

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