tcai_development

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output dimensions (stage, stability, meta-representation score) and the behavioral trait of 'second-order self-monitoring over time.' It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or whether it modifies any state, but 'tracking' implies a non-mutating observation.

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 compact, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists specific outputs. The parenthetical 'DevelopmentTracker port' adds context but is slightly unnecessary; overall, the description is efficient and free of filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it produces, and its temporal nature. It does not specify return formats or units, but the low complexity makes this acceptable. The lack of sibling differentiation is a minor gap.

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 schema provides no parameter information. The description adds context about the data source ('running composite-proxy level') and outputs, which adequately compensates for the lack of parameters. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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's function: longitudinal developmental tracking with specific stage progression (nascent→reactive→integrative→reflective) and derived scores. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing temporal tracking and second-order self-monitoring, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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?

Usage context is implied through 'longitudinal' and 'over time', suggesting it is for tracking development rather than one-off queries. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tcai_second_order or tcai_meta_learning, and no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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