tcai_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only lists metrics and the word 'report', but does not explain whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format is, whether any state changes occur, or if there are performance or rate-limit implications. This is a significant gap for a tool that might offer a detailed consciousness report.

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, highly concise line that front-loads the core purpose and lists key output components. Every word contributes: 'Consciousness proxy report' is the noun phrase, and the colon introduces the metrics list. There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 input schema, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of explaining both behavior and return values. It does identify the metrics that will be reported, which is helpful, but it does not describe the format, structure, or semantics of the report (e.g., how the composite score is derived, units, or how to interpret the values). For a read-only metrics tool, this is borderline adequate but leaves unanswered questions.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds value by indicating what the output will contain (specific metrics and a composite score). This is sufficient for a no-input tool.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it is a 'Consciousness proxy report' that includes GNW metrics, Effective Information, Φ̃-RIIU, and a composite score. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like get_metrics or get_acm_score by enumerating the exact metrics it reports. However, the verb is implied ('report') rather than explicit, and the phrase 'Consciousness proxy' may be somewhat abstract.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when it should be preferred over get_metrics, tcai_meta_learning, or other sibling tools, nor does it indicate prerequisites or context. The description provides no usage context beyond the tool's existence.

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