tcai_convergence

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

Despite no annotations, the description comprehensively describes the halting logic: 'loop halts only when variational free energy has settled ... AND realized task quality is high ... AND epistemic value is low, sustained over patience cycles.' It also cites a source (Legros 2026), adding credibility.

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?

Three short sentences convey purpose, conditional use, and detailed logic without redundancy. Every sentence adds value; no filler words.

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 5-parameter tool without output schema or annotations, the description provides essential operational context (inspect vs configure, halting condition). It could hint at return format, but the statement 'returns the current satisfaction state and active thresholds' suffices.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by connecting parameters (epsFreeEnergy, minTaskQuality, maxEpistemic, patience) into the overall halting condition, providing context beyond individual definitions.

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 states 'Inspect or configure the recursive double-loop halting criterion (v2.6)', specifying the verb (inspect/configure) and resource (halting criterion). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tcai_cycle which focus on execution rather than convergence criteria.

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?

It explains conditional usage: 'With no arguments, returns ... With arguments, updates them.' This guides when to use inspection vs configuration but does not contrast with alternative tools or specify when not to use.

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