get_acm_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what kind of score it returns, how the proxy is computed, whether there are side effects, or what the response contains. 'Consciousness Assessment (Proxy)' is a label rather than a behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It reads as a title or label rather than a usable tool description, and the parenthetical 'Proxy' is the only substantive hint.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a nontrivial domain of sibling tools, the description is far too incomplete. An agent cannot determine what ACM means, what the proxy is based on, what value will be returned, or how this differs from related assessment and status tools.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate here; the description adds no parameter information but none is needed.

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 resource ('Consciousness Assessment') and adds the qualifier 'Proxy,' which suggests an indirect measure. However, it lacks a verb and does not explain what ACM stands for or what the proxy actually represents, leaving the purpose somewhat vague and not clearly differentiated from sibling tools like get_system_status or get_metrics.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and the 'Proxy' hint is too underspecified to count as usable usage direction.

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