tcai_calibrate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the behavior: runs cycles, records |ΔF|, sets epsFreeEnergy, and returns measured scale and threshold. It discloses the side effect of setting an internal parameter. Could mention if this is safe during active inference, but overall transparent.

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 succinct and front-loaded. It states the primary goal, then method, outputs, and rationale in a logical order. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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 no output schema, the description mentions return values. Parameters are fully covered. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., must a system be running?), error conditions, and potential side effects on ongoing processes. Slightly lacking in broader context.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds context beyond schema by explaining how each parameter fits into the calibration process (e.g., 'reward signal during warm-up', 'epsFreeEnergy = factor × median|ΔF|'). This enhances understanding of parameter roles.

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's function: calibrating the halting threshold based on measured ΔF scale. It specifies the process (warm-up cycles, recording increments, setting threshold) and distinguishes it from the default constant approach. No sibling tool performs calibration, so it is well-differentiated.

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 clear context for using this tool: when a calibrated threshold is needed instead of a guessed constant, referencing a specific critique. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternatives, though no such alternatives exist among siblings.

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