noetic.authority

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Dry-run' usefully signals that no permission change is made, and 'probe' suggests a read-only check. However, it does not explain failure modes, return behavior, or whether an existing session is required, leaving 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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, so it is concise. It is, however, under-specified for a tool with three undocumented parameters, making it concise but not fully appropriately sized.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter meanings, return format, prerequisites, and selection criteria, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It does not define 'target,' 'operation,' or 'sessionId,' nor does it explain how they relate to the permission probe. An agent cannot derive parameter semantics from either source.

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 states a specific function: 'Dry-run permission probe for an in-scope target.' This is more than a tautology and conveys the tool's core purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like noetic.check_rights, so it misses the top score.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to choose this over noetic.check_rights, noetic.request_access, or noetic.grant, and no exclusion criteria. The only hint is the phrase 'dry-run,' which implies it is for non-mutating checks.

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