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. It implies a read-only report (no parameters, no side effects mentioned), but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or whether it requires any system state. The description would benefit from stating that it does not modify any data or state.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Consciousness proxy report') and lists key contents. It is concise with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the report contains. It does not explain the metrics in detail, but for a simple informational tool this is adequate. It could be improved by noting expected return format or latency.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description lists the metrics included in the report, which adds value beyond the empty input schema. A score of 4 is appropriate as it meets the baseline for no parameters and adds useful context.

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 the tool produces a 'Consciousness proxy report' and lists specific metrics (GNW metrics, Effective Information, Φ̃-RIIU, composite score). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tcai_metaconsciousness or tcai_self_model which focus on different aspects.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the abundance of sibling tcai_* tools, the agent would benefit from knowing when to query metrics versus other cognitive functions.

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