ps_state_recalibrate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool recalibrates a baseline, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose effects (e.g., whether it's destructive, requires permissions, has side effects like downtime, or impacts system state). No rate limits, error conditions, or output details are mentioned, leaving significant gaps.

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 highly concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and parameter behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse and front-loaded for clarity.

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 of a mutation tool (recalibrating agent drift) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, prerequisites, or what 'recalibrate' means in practice. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe or effective use, especially compared to siblings with clearer purposes.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (agentId, newBaseline). The description adds marginal value by noting that newBaseline is optional and that omission leads to recalibration from the current state, but doesn't explain semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., what 'recalibrate' entails for the agent). Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 action ('Recalibrate') and the target ('agent drift baseline'), with an optional capability ('provide a new baseline configuration'). It distinguishes from siblings like ps_state_get or ps_state_reset by focusing on recalibration rather than retrieval or resetting. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., ps_state_system), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions an optional parameter but doesn't specify scenarios for recalibration (e.g., after drift detection, during maintenance) or contrast with siblings like ps_state_reset. Usage is implied through the action, but lacks 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.