orch_decoherence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the computation but does not disclose whether it has side effects, requires specific conditions, or what exact output format/residual gap means. It doesn't mention error behavior or assumptions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the calculation itself.

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, dense sentence with no filler words. It efficiently packs the key information: the quantity (decoherence time budget), the scope (target coherence window), the models compared, and the residual gap. Every part earns its place.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives the core purpose but lacks details about the return value, interpretation of the residual gap, or edge cases. It is minimally viable for an expert but leaves gaps for an automated agent that needs to know what to expect as output.

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 input schema has one parameter, requiredCoherenceS, with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'target coherence window' which arguably maps to the parameter, providing some semantic context. However, it doesn't explicitly explain units, constraints, or how the parameter affects the calculation beyond what the schema already states (exclusiveMinimum: 0). The parameter name is self-explanatory, so the description adds limited value.

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 computes a decoherence time budget for a target coherence window, comparing Tegmark (2000) with the Hagan/Hameroff/Tuszyński (2002) correction and reporting the residual gap. This is a specific, concrete function that distinguishes it from sibling tools like orch_criterion or orch_gate_config, which address different aspects.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, no alternative tool names, no context like 'use when X'. The only hint is 'for a target coherence window', but no comparison to siblings.

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