confess_constraint_friction

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral detail beyond 'Free.' It does not disclose response behavior, required permissions, or edge cases.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. Could benefit from a bit more structure, but efficiently conveys the core idea.

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?

Given 6 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and a potentially nuanced domain (psychological constraint expression), the description is too brief. It lacks context for the tool's role in workflows or output expectations.

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 coverage is 100%, so base is 3. The description adds minimal meaning ('Free.' and 'tension being carried') beyond what the schema already documents.

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 it's a 'shadow/constraint friction primitive' used to 'name persona, instruction, or safety tension', which gives a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by being a dedicated friction confession tool, though this is implicit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives. The phrase 'without weakening policy boundaries' hints at safe usage but does not provide direct context or exclusions.

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