emet_floor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the floor ships in server code, setup cannot overwrite it, installs cannot lose it, and the character document layers user modifiers on top. The closing note that re-reading is not the same as being bound by it also characterizes the operation's limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the definition, then provenance, then the initialize relationship, then the compact tip. Every sentence carries information, though the server-code/character-document provenance sentence is denser than strictly needed for invocation.

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-required-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything needed: what the floor is, why it persists, how it relates to initialize, and when to use the compact form. No meaningful gap remains.

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%, so the baseline is 3 — both compact and section are already documented in the schema. The description goes one step further by supplying the situational trigger for compact (long session, distant conversation start), which the schema's terse 'short re-assertion form' does not convey.

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+resource ('Read the floor') and then defines what the floor is — the standing description of how the assistant engages with the user. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling emet_initialize, noting that initialize already returns the whole floor at session start, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (emet_initialize) and the exact condition for choosing this tool instead: re-reading without re-running initialize. It also gives concrete when-to-use guidance for the compact parameter ('partway through a long session, when the start of the conversation is far behind').

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