tcai_calibrate

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

Describes the procedural steps (runs cycles, records ΔF, sets threshold) and states return values. However, with no annotations, it lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., whether it modifies persistent state), error behavior, or permission requirements. The description is functional but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Single, well-structured paragraph with no redundancy. Every sentence contributes essential information. The purpose is stated first, followed by method and outputs. No extraneous detail.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description covers input parameters, process, and return values. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but for a calibration tool the provided information is largely sufficient for a knowledgeable user.

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 descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds meaning by explaining how parameters are used (warm-up cycles, reward signal during warm-up, factor applied to median) and provides defaults. This enriches the schema information.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool's action (calibrate halting threshold), the method (using measured ΔF scale instead of guessed constant), and the specific outcome (returns measured ΔF scale and applied threshold). Names specific parameters (cycles, reward, factor) and explicitly addresses a known critique, distinguishing it from generic alternatives.

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?

Implies usage context by referencing a 'v2.9 critique', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., tcai_cycle, tcai_convergence). No guidance on prerequisites, when not to use, or recommended contexts.

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