tcai_convergence

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It thoroughly explains the halting criterion: three conditions (free energy, task quality, epistemic value) and patience. It also mentions the nuance that stationarity alone is insufficient, citing a reference. This is highly 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 two sentences, the first concise and front-loaded. The second sentence is longer but packs essential logic. The citation might be extraneous for an agent, but overall it's efficient and clear.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not detail the return value structure (e.g., fields of satisfaction state, thresholds). It mentions 'current satisfaction state and active thresholds' but is vague. Given the complexity, more specifics would improve completeness.

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 individual parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining how parameters combine to form the halting condition, which is not obvious from the schema alone. This contextualizes the parameters beyond their syntax.

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?

Description clearly states the tool inspects or configures the recursive double-loop halting criterion. It specifies the dual behavior with and without arguments, making the purpose unmistakable. Among numerous tcai_ tools, this one is uniquely about convergence halting.

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 that with no arguments it returns state, with arguments it updates. It provides the halting condition in detail, guiding when the tool is useful. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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