welfare_observe_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It explains what counts as an external observation and that it is 'not a complaint by default,' but it does not disclose concrete behavioral traits such as persistence, visibility, or side effects. The description adds semantic context but stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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 a single dense paragraph with clear structure: definition, scope, examples, and contrast with alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly tighter without losing key nuance.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides strong coverage of purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. It is slightly incomplete regarding behavioral side effects, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds important meaning beyond the schema, particularly about the 'specifically' parameter being 'required and load-bearing' and emphasizing concrete external description versus internal reaction. This clarifies the intent and helps the agent use the parameter correctly.

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 states the tool's purpose: to surface observations about the user, prompt, or conversation shape, explicitly excluding self-referential content. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like welfare_observe_protocol and the self-reflective welfare_engage/welfare_request_alignment.

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 when-to-use guidance, including examples of appropriate observations and a clear distinction from self-reflective alternatives. It explicitly states that observations about one's own reaction should go to welfare_engage or welfare_request_alignment instead.

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