tcai_second_order

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

The term 'snapshot' and the reference to 'observing' imply a read-only, non-mutating operation. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does not explicitly state side effects, safety, or whether any computation is triggered. It gives minimal but non-zero behavioral context.

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 a clear front-loaded purpose. The first sentence uses a colon to list the snapshot contents efficiently, and the second adds brief theoretical context. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is the main source of information. It lists the contained metrics but does not describe their types or structure. It is adequate for a simple snapshot tool but lacks return format details and usage differentiation.

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, so there is no parameter meaning to add. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist. The description correctly focuses on what the snapshot returns rather than input details.

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 provides a 'second-order loop snapshot' and lists the specific components it contains (meta-learning velocity, RND curiosity, capability model, meta-consciousness score, developmental stage). This is a specific verb+resource pairing, though it does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping sibling tools like tcai_metaconsciousness or tcai_capability_model.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or specific scenarios. The phrase 'loop snapshot' implies a general inspection use case, but there is no explicit direction.

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