tcai_development

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns stage, stability, and meta-representation scores, and mentions second-order self-monitoring over time. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or what side effects might occur. The lack of side-effect disclosure limits transparency.

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, consisting of a single sentence that front-loads key information. However, it uses domain-specific jargon that might reduce clarity for some agents, slightly detracting from conciseness.

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 complexity as a longitudinal tracker with multiple outputs, the description provides only a high-level enumeration of outputs (stage, stability, meta-representation score). Without an output schema, it lacks details on data types, ranges, or format, which are necessary for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there is no parameter information to provide.

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 states that the tool tracks longitudinal development, outputting coarse stage, stability, and meta-representation score. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tcai_metaconsciousness by focusing on developmental tracking over time. However, the jargon (e.g., 'composite-proxy level') may obscure clarity for non-experts.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or contextual cues. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and brief description.

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