check_working_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds genuine context: the tool is implemented by get_governance_metrics(), the read is non-mutating (in schema description), and each EISV field's interpretation is spelled out (e.g., S is 'drift from the agent's own normal,' V is 'EMA-smoothed E-I imbalance'). But it does not disclose session/ownership prerequisites, whether reads trigger recomputation, or error/staleness behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a compact implementation note and dense but justified field definitions that every call outcome depends on. The only mildly questionable element is 'Primary workflow name,' which is slightly awkward phrasing but not wasteful.

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 EISV field definitions meaningfully compensate for the absent output schema, and parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema. Still missing are the overall response shape, what lite=false concretely adds beyond 'full diagnostic data,' and when continuity_token/client_session_id actually become necessary, which an agent needs for robust invocation.

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%, and each parameter (lite, include_state, continuity_token, client_session_id) already has rich, behavior-oriented descriptions, including the warning that include_state 'can be large' and that continuity_token is 'not a cross-process resume credential.' The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'reading current EISV state,' and substantiates it by defining all four EISV fields (E, I, S, V) with ranges and meanings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling health_check, which an agent could plausibly confuse with checking working state.

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 phrase 'Primary workflow name for reading current EISV state' implies this is the main entry point for reading governance state, and the schema note 'without updating state' adds a mild read-vs-write signal. But no alternatives are named and no when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions or exclusions are given, leaving routing largely to inference.

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