tcai_self_model

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'state' with a list of aspects, failing to indicate whether this is read-only, what the return format is, or if any side effects occur. This is insufficient for an agent to predict tool behavior.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to provide necessary information about the tool's action or output, making the brevity a deficiency rather than a strength.

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 appears to represent a complex internal state (interoception, epistemic model, etc.), yet the description is merely a label. With no output schema and no annotation, the description should explain what the tool returns or what actions it performs, but it does not. This leaves the tool fundamentally ambiguous.

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?

With 0 parameters, schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline for no params is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none.

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 names a specific resource (self-representation state) and lists components, but lacks an action verb, making it unclear whether this is a query, setter, or diagnostic. It does not explicitly differ from sibling tools like tcai_capability_model, though the listed terms suggest a distinct focus.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many related sibling tools (e.g., tcai_metaconsciousness, tcai_workspace_state). The description gives no context for appropriate use cases.

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