tcai_convergence

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool both reads and writes configuration, and explains the halting logic in detail. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits, which would be beneficial but are not critical for this read/write tool.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main purpose, then immediately clarifies the two modes (inspect vs configure), and finally explains the halting condition. Every sentence earns its place.

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's simplicity (no output schema, all optional params), the description is quite complete. It explains the halting logic and parameters. It could mention return format or persistence of updates, but the current text is sufficient for competent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides the overall halting logic but adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already offers (e.g., thresholds and defaults). Thus, it meets the baseline without extra value.

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 inspects or configures the recursive double-loop halting criterion (v2.7), with specific verbs 'inspect' and 'configure'. It distinguishes from sibling tcai_* tools by focusing uniquely on the convergence halting logic.

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 explains when to use the tool: to check the current state (no arguments) or update thresholds (with arguments). It provides detailed context on the halting condition but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving usage partly implied.

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