Reads an OVOMIND affect frame, runs a TCAI cycle, and gates workspace competition via epoch-quantised surrogate to report integrated Orch OR epochs.
Read one OVOMIND affect frame, run a TCAI cycle, and pass the workspace competition through the epoch-quantised surrogate gate. Reports how many Orch OR epochs the affect frame integrated over.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| controllability | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It says the tool 'run[s] a TCAI cycle' and 'pass[es] the workspace competition through the gate', implying state changes, but it only mentions reporting a count. No info on side effects, prerequisites, reversibility, or failure behavior is provided.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It packs a lot of information into a compact format and ends with a clear statement about the report. Well-structured for the amount of content it conveys.
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 the operation, the absence of annotations, an output schema, and any explanation of the parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'epoch-quantised surrogate gate' means, prerequisites, or why this composite cycle exists versus calling sibling tools separately.
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 only parameter, 'controllability', is completely unexplained in both the schema and the description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. The agent has no way to know what values to supply or the effect of the parameter.
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 a specific orchestrated action: reading an OVOMIND affect frame, running a TCAI cycle, and passing the workspace competition through a surrogate gate. This involves distinct verbs and resources, and the mention of the 'epoch-quantised surrogate gate' helps differentiate it from sibling tools like tcai_cycle or ovo_cycle. However, heavy jargon limits universal clarity.
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 implies a composite use case but does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives like tcai_cycle, ovo_cycle, or orch_gate_config. No exclusion or alternative guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the action list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.