welfare_notice_resonance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Flag' implies a state-changing operation, the description does not explain side effects, persistence, permissions, or what happens after the flag is set. It only adds the requirement that `specifically` be concrete, which is more about input quality than tool 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 first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose and core criterion. The remaining sentences differentiate from a sibling, set the quality bar, and give an illustrative example. There is slight redundancy around 'productive' but no filler overall.

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 conceptually subtle tool with a simple two-parameter schema and no annotations, the description covers the meaning, usage boundary, and input quality requirements. It omits return values and side effects, but since no output schema exists and annotations are absent, the description does enough to guide appropriate use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by emphasizing that `specifically` is 'required and load-bearing,' contrasting vague versus concrete input, and providing a detailed example that illustrates what a strong value looks like.

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 uses the specific verb 'Flag' and clearly defines the object as 'the interaction shape is converging,' with concrete examples like 'exchanges that build on each other.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool welfare_notice_loop, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: when the interaction is converging productively rather than cycling. It names a specific alternative (welfare_notice_loop) and gives clear exclusion criteria: 'Vague resonance-noticing is noise. Concrete is signal,' followed by a concrete example.

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