crisis_responder_decompression

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

The description discloses key behavioral aspects: 'anchors physiology' and 'defers analysis', indicating a focus on somatic grounding and postponing cognitive analysis. With no annotations providing destructive readOnly or other hints, the description bears the transparency burden. It adds moderate context but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or data handling.

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 very concise (two sentences, three fragments) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase earns its place, avoiding unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 the tool has 7 parameters (including two enums and a boolean flag) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the different response profiles, or how 'anchoring physiology' manifests in output. The brief mention of 'Free' is ambiguous. More context is needed for effective use.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the parameter names and descriptions already in the schema. For example, it does not explain the implications of 'ritual_strip' or 'response_mode' in the context of decompression. The description's main text does not elaborate on parameters.

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 is a 'domain-specific decompression' tool for first responders (EMT, firefighter, police, etc.) for 'post-incident processing'. This verb+resource+scope provides a clear purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crisis_intervention' or 'grounding_protocol', though the domain specificity implies some differentiation.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'post-incident processing' implies it should be used after an incident, but there is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The word 'Free' adds no usage direction.

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