tcai_self_model

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

No annotations exist. The description lists four aspects of self-representation but does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, is read-only, requires specific preconditions, or returns transient vs persistent data. The behavioral impact is unclear.

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 concise at one line, but it is a phrase rather than a complete sentence. It front-loads key terms. Slightly more structure (e.g., 'Returns the current self-representation state...') would improve it.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the return format, data structure, or how to interpret the state components. For a tool likely returning complex internal state, this is inadequate.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about what the state includes (interoception, epistemic model, etc.), which provides meaning beyond trivial schema. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 lists aspects of self-representation state but omits the action verb (e.g., 'get', 'retrieve'). The purpose is implied as reading internal state, but it's vague compared to sibling tools that have clearer action verbs.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tcai_workspace_state or tcai_metaconsciousness. Sibling tools with similar purposes exist, but no differentiation is provided.

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