tcai_convergence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the AND condition and the insufficiency of stationarity, which are important behavioral details. However, it does not disclose whether updates persist or affect running loops, so it falls short of full transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence efficiently packs the halting logic. The citation is somewhat extraneous but does not bloat; every clause serves a purpose.

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 covers both read and write modes, explains the functional condition, and notes the return content for the no-args case despite lacking an output schema. It is sufficiently complete for a configuration tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking parameters into a cohesive halting condition (|ΔF| ≤ epsFreeEnergy, ≥ minTaskQuality, patience cycles), but it does not explicitly mention maxEpistemic by name, relying on 'epistemic value is low'.

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 inspecting or configuring the halting criterion, a specific resource distinct from sibling tools like tcai_second_order or tcai_active_inference. The verb 'inspect or configure' is specific, and the resource is unambiguously named.

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?

It explicitly states behavior with no arguments (returns state/thresholds) vs with arguments (updates them), giving clear context. It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the dual-mode usage is clearly laid out.

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