tcai_development

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool computes developmental stage, stability, and meta-representation scores over time, but does not state whether it is read-only, what return format is expected, or any side effects. This is adequate for a high-level understanding but lacks operational detail.

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 and front-loads the core purpose. It is dense with meaningful terms, though the heavy jargon (composite-proxy level, meta-representation) may obscure clarity for some agents.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description provides the essential output concepts but does not elaborate on return structure or the meaning of 'composite-proxy level'. Given the complexity and lack of an output schema, additional detail would help an agent interpret and use the result effectively.

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 schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameters and does not introduce any, which is appropriate.

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 longitudinal developmental tracking, listing a specific stage progression (nascent→reactive→integrative→reflective) and output metrics (stability, meta-representation score). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing temporal tracking, though it lacks a strong action verb and relies on 'DevelopmentTracker port' for context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tcai_second_order or tcai_self_model. It does not state conditions for use, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate invocation contexts.

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