wm_surprise

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

No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits—whether this is a read-only analysis, whether it modifies internal state, how it responds, or any side effects. The phrase gives no 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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides only a six-word phrase and omits essential information; it does not 'earn its place' as a useful explanation.

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 tool with a required nested action object and no output schema or annotations, this description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, what inputs mean, what outputs look like, or when to use it, leaving the agent without enough context.

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 input schema fully describes the nested 'action' object and its properties (targetNeurons, strengths, duration), so schema coverage is 100%. However, the tool description itself adds no parameter meaning—it does not explain how these parameters relate to surprise detection.

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 'Violation-of-Expectation Detection' is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool's name (surprise = violation of expectation). It lacks an action verb and does not explain what operation the tool performs, making it hard for an agent to know what invoking it will do.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like wm_predict or wm_encode. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.

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