wm_predict

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Predict' but does not clarify whether this operation is read-only, whether it affects system state, or any side effects. The description lacks important behavioral context such as mutability, auth needs, or rate limits.

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, concise phrase that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it may be overly sparse, lacking detail that could be valuable, but for purpose clarity it is efficient.

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 a nested action object and multiple parameters, indicating moderate complexity, yet the description is minimal. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining latent space context, return values, and usage nuances. It fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to fully understand the tool's role and expected behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'steps' and 'action' having descriptions explaining their purpose. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, but the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the structured fields carry the semantic weight.

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 'Predict Next SNN State in Latent Space' clearly states the action (predict) and resource (SNN state in latent space), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like wm_plan or wm_encode, which limits differentiation.

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. It only states what the tool does, without any context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This is a single declarative phrase with no usage direction.

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