tcai_development

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It describes outputs but does not state whether the tool is read-only, modifies state, or requires specific prerequisites. The description lacks clarity on side effects or computational cost.

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 a single sentence with key information front-loaded ('Longitudinal developmental tracking'). It is dense but not verbose, though the parenthetical could be slightly restructured for easier parsing.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool tracks and returns. However, additional context on how to interpret the stages and scores would improve completeness for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it compensates by describing the function adequately.

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 identifies the tool as performing longitudinal developmental tracking, listing specific outputs (coarse stage, stability, meta-representation score) and mentions second-order self-monitoring. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on other cognitive functions.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tcai_self_model or tcai_metaconsciousness. The agent is left to infer usage context from the description alone.

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