tcai_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the content type (a report) but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, requires special permissions, or incurs computational cost. For a metrics/report tool, read-only behavior is likely, but it is not explicitly stated.

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 concise: one phrase listing the key outputs. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Consciousness proxy report') and every word adds information. No filler or redundant content.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns. It names four metric categories but does not describe their format, structure, units, or how they relate. This is adequate for a simple 0-parameter report but leaves gaps for a tool producing multiple complex metrics.

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 schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information.

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 identifies the tool as producing a 'Consciousness proxy report' containing specific metrics (GNW metrics, Effective Information, Φ̃-RIIU, composite score), which conveys both the resource and the scope. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'generate', but 'report' implies retrieval. It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools like get_metrics by naming specific consciousness-related 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_acm_score, tcai_metaconsciousness, or get_metrics. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts. A user must infer usage solely from the metric names.

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