tcai_calibrate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently describes the process: runs warm-up cycles, records ΔF, sets epsFreeEnergy, and returns values. It does not mention side effects or reversibility, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed. It is sufficiently transparent for an AI agent.

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 4 sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds unique value: purpose, methodology, return values, and motivation. No wasted words, and the structure is logical.

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 explains the algorithm, return values, and motivation. It lacks explicit system dependencies or prerequisites, but given the complexity and the fact that no output schema exists, it provides enough context for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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% with descriptions, but the description adds value by explaining the functional role of each parameter (e.g., cycles for warm-up, reward for recording, factor for threshold). This connects the parameters to the algorithm beyond the schema's simple descriptions, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 begins with 'Calibrate the halting threshold on the measured ΔF scale instead of a guessed constant', which is a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool's unique function. It distinguishes itself from other tcai tools by focusing on calibration, and the reference to a v2.6 critique adds context. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 implicitly suggests use when the default threshold is uncalibrated by mentioning 'instead of a guessed constant' and addressing a critique. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites, when not to use, or list alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit decision guidance.

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