orch_decoherence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that the output is a comparison between two models and a residual gap, but says nothing about return format or precision. A 3 reflects modest added value over the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource is named first and the models are cited economically. Jargon (Tegmark 2000, HHT 2002) is dense but appropriate to the domain.

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 conveying what is returned. It hints at a comparison plus a residual gap but does not describe the shape or meaning of those results, and the lone input parameter lacks unit/format detail. Adequate but with clear gaps for a physics-computation tool.

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 0%, so the single parameter requiredCoherenceS is undocumented structurally. The description partially compensates by naming it as a 'target coherence window', but it never states units, format, or bounds — a gap only partially filled by the parameter name's 'S' suffix.

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 states a specific computational resource — the decoherence time budget for a coherence window, computed as Tegmark (2000) vs the Hagan/Hameroff/Tuszyński (2002) correction plus the residual gap. That is a concrete verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as orch_criterion or orch_substrate, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 indication of when to call this tool versus alternatives like orch_criterion or orch_substrate, nor any prerequisite or context for the coherence window value. The description only says what is computed, not when it is the right choice.

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