tcai_development

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool computes ('coarse stage', 'stability', 'meta-representation score') but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific conditions. The phrase 'from the running composite-proxy level' hints at reading internal state but is ambiguous.

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, moderately sized, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes relevant details without excessive verbosity, though some jargon ('composite-proxy level', 'DevelopmentTracker port') adds complexity.

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?

The description mentions the key output components (stage, stability, meta-representation score) and temporal aspect, but with no output schema, it does not fully specify the return format. Terms like 'composite-proxy level' and the stage progression are not explained, leaving gaps for a user unfamiliar with the domain.

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 input schema is empty. As per baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description need not explain parameters; it correctly avoids adding any parameter-related content.

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 the tool's resource ('Longitudinal developmental tracking') and provides specific output elements (coarse stage, stability, meta-representation score, second-order self-monitoring). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on development over time, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tcai_self_model, tcai_second_order, or tcai_metaconsciousness. It does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the user to infer when this tracking tool is relevant.

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