get_acm_score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by disclaiming that no consciousness class or level is derived and citing FCS prohibitions, but it does not describe the returned structure, scale, or value ranges of the index.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the definition before the disclaimer. The only friction is the opaque 'FCS prohibitions 1 and 4' reference, which assumes prior context but costs little space.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it only says the result is three proxies plus a weighted sum without naming the fields or their range. For a zero-parameter read-only tool this is adequate but leaves the shape of the response unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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 the specific resource — an engineering index of the simulation composed of three IIT/GWT/PAD-inspired proxies and their weighted sum — and explicitly scopes it as not a consciousness measurement. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not differentiate itself from metric-adjacent siblings like get_metrics or tcai_metrics by name.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative. The clause 'no class or level is derived' weakly implies that classification tasks belong to a different tool (e.g. fcs_stratify/fcs_levels), but this is left entirely to inference rather than stated as routing guidance.

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