fcs_stratify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool recomputes, reports a yes/no-style reproducibility result, and that the τ cuts alter the resulting order. It stops short of explicitly stating whether state is mutated or describing the output format, but the analysis-oriented wording makes the behavior understandable.

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?

Two sentences carry the full purpose, the scientific context, the default behavior, and the parameter rationale. No filler; the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is computed, what is reported, and the meaning/effect of the only parameter. The only real gap is the precise return structure, but the prose indicates a reproducibility verdict.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already defines tauCutsLog10 as ascending decimal-exponent cuts defaulting to [-1, 0]. The description adds real value by mapping those cuts to 10⁻¹ s and 10⁰ s, naming the conscious-episode window, and explaining why changing the parameter is meaningful.

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 names a precise action and resource: recompute the partial order by Pareto dominance over the three ordinal sub-criteria and report whether it reproduces the eight strata from document IV §3. This is specific and distinguishes fcs_stratify from sibling tools like fcs_compare or fcs_conformance.

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 conveys that the default τ cuts reproduce the published window and that changing the parameter changes the order, which is the point of exposing it. It implies a validation/sensitivity use case but never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over a sibling or when not to call it.

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