tcai_metaconsciousness

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes it's a 'proxy, not a measurement', but fails to describe what triggers the evaluation, whether state is modified, or what the return value format is. Lacks critical behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value, concisely defining the tool's purpose and limitations.

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?

Despite having no parameters, the tool lacks an output schema and the description does not explain the return value (e.g., score range, interpretation). Given the simplicity, this omission is significant; an agent cannot properly interpret results.

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 and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description adds extra meaning by listing the components of the weighted score, which aids understanding even though no parameters exist.

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 this tool provides a 'weighted score over confidence calibration, learning awareness, self-continuity and error monitoring' via a 'proxy of meta-representation capacity'. It is distinct from sibling tools by focusing specifically on a meta-consciousness composite.

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 implies usage for evaluating meta-consciousness but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., tcai_second_order, tcai_self_model). No exclusions or context are provided.

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