noetic.territory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Typed inference' hints at some inference behavior, but the description does not explain what is inferred, whether this is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the output represents. This is too thin for an agent to predict the tool's behavior.

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 short but not effectively concise; it substitutes jargon ('declared-vs-lived gap', 'typed inference') for plain explanation. It is under-specification rather than tight, valuable prose.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, one unexplained parameter, and no usage context. The description is not nearly sufficient for an agent to select, invoke, or interpret the result of this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented sessionId parameter. It does not mention sessionId at all or explain how it relates to territory organization or declared-vs-lived gaps. The agent is left with only a bare 'string' type and no semantic guidance.

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 is a cryptic noun phrase: 'District organization + declared-vs-lived gap (typed inference).' It gestures at territory/district organization and a comparison between declared and lived states, but no clear verb or operation is stated. It does not distinguish this tool from the many other noetic.* siblings.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools such as noetic.observe, noetic.query, or noetic.ground.

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