tcai_calibrate

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs warm-up cycles, records ΔF, and sets epsFreeEnergy (a side effect). However, it does not mention if this is destructive or reversible, but the core behavior is well explained.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no filler. Every sentence adds value, including the historical context (v2.7 critique).

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the process, return values (measured ΔF scale and threshold), and even addresses prior critique. No significant gaps.

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 parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context by stating defaults and explaining how parameters interact (cycles as warm-up, factor multiplying median). This adds value beyond schema alone.

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 calibrates the halting threshold by measuring ΔF and setting epsFreeEnergy to factor times median |ΔF|. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on calibration rather than general active inference or metrics tools.

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 implies usage when the default threshold is uncalibrated (v2.7 critique), but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to siblings like tcai_cycle. Still provides clear context.

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