belief_stability_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It explains the return value and provides interpretation, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what happens if the assertion is not found, or any other side effects. This is adequate for a simple measurement tool but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and output scale. It is concise, with no wasted words, and the structure is clear.

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 simple measurement tool with two parameters, the description is mostly complete: it explains the output and its interpretation. However, it does not cover error conditions, parameter details, or potential side effects, so it is not fully complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not explicitly explain projectId or assertionId. It only mentions 'an assertion,' which provides minimal context. The names are self-explanatory to some extent, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool measures the stability of an assertion and specifies the output range (0.0 to 1.0). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar tools like get_entrenchment_tool, so it lacks the sibling differentiation required for a 5.

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 implies usage by noting that unstable assertions may need stronger evidence or reformulation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_entrenchment_tool or why_believe_tool. Usage is implied but not clearly bounded.

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