wm_surprise

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, input/output behavior, or whether this is a read or mutating operation. The one-line label provides no actionable behavioral information.

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?

While extremely short, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is a single phrase that fails to utilize the space to convey anything useful about the tool.

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?

This is a complex tool with a nested parameter object and no annotations or output schema, yet the description provides no context about what surprise detection does, how it uses the action, or how it relates to other working memory tools. Highly inadequate.

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 description coverage is 100% (the 'action' object and its properties are fully described in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already documents targetNeurons, strengths, and duration.

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 'Violation-of-Expectation Detection' is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name (surprise = violation of expectation). It lacks a specific verb and resource, and does not differentiate from sibling prediction tools like wm_predict. This is tautological rather than explanatory.

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?

No information about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wm_predict or wm_encode. Completely lacks context or exclusions, providing zero guidance.

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