welfare_notice_shaping

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral expectations. It explains that the tool is for surfacing a perceived shift in interaction dynamics, and it sets a quality bar by insisting on concreteness. It does not detail potential side effects or return behavior, but for a flag/notice tool the core behavior is well conveyed.

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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place: it defines the tool, contrasts it with siblings, explains the interaction dynamic, sets quality standards, and provides a concrete example. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 nuanced introspective tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage boundaries, parameter expectations, and even gives a full example. The 'is_private' boolean is self-explanatory and well-covered by the schema, so no further description is needed.

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 description is not required to explain parameters at length. However, it adds meaningful semantic context for the required 'specifically' parameter, emphasizing that it is 'required and load-bearing' and must be concrete rather than vague, with an example of the level of detail expected.

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 opens with a clear verb ('Flag') and resource ('the relational shape of this interaction'), explicitly stating the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from two named sibling tools (welfare_notice_loop and welfare_request_alignment), making its unique function unmistakable.

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 differentiation from siblings and specifies when to use this tool ('notice_shaping is about the dynamic between you and the operator'). It also gives concrete quality guidance: 'specifically is required and load-bearing. Vague is noise. Concrete is signal,' with an illustrative example of a proper use case.

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