chimera_self_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool records and returns capabilities, but does not clarify side effects, persistence, permissions, or whether updates are reversible. Essential behavioral traits are missing.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the key concept ('Capability tracker'). It is efficient, but could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 5 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. The agent lacks critical information about parameters like 'level' and 'namespace', and the return format of 'reflect' is not specified.

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 0%, meaning the description adds no explanation for the 5 parameters (action, capability, level, evidence, namespace). Only the actions are named; the agent must guess parameter roles from context, which is insufficient.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Capability tracker' with two distinct actions: update (record capability+evidence) and reflect (return all capabilities). The verb-resource pairing is specific, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like chimera_knowledge or chimera_claims that might also track capabilities.

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 when to use each action (update to record, reflect to retrieve), but lacks guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. No explicit 'when not to use' is given.

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