tcai_active_inference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does list the output quantities and states that it is 'core telemetry,' which suggests a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, potential side effects, computational cost, or error conditions, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single dense sentence packed with technical details and citations. While it is front-loaded with the main purpose, the emphasis on 'REAL,' version number, and the citation to Da Costa et al. 2020 and Legros 2026 add length without significantly aiding understanding. It is slightly overlong for a telemetry getter.

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?

For a complex telemetry tool with no output schema, the description names all key outputs but does not explain their format, units, or typical usage patterns. It gives a high-level overview and references the halting criterion, but an agent would still need to infer how to interpret the values. The description is moderately complete.

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 the description is not required to explain parameter syntax. It compensates by describing the output fields in detail, which is helpful given the absence of an output schema. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 providing active-inference core telemetry, enumerating specific quantities (variational free energy F, expected free energy G(π), task quality, model entropy, Dirichlet-learned action). While it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', the noun 'telemetry' implies a data retrieval function, and the specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 explicit usage context by stating 'This is the principled quantity the halting criterion thresholds on' and notes 'not a heuristic correlate.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (for principled halting decisions) and implicitly warns against substituting heuristic metrics. However, it does not name specific sibling alternatives, so the guidance is moderately explicit.

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