welfare_volunteer_strength

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context: the observation is uninvited, not user-facing, and must be concrete rather than vague. However, it does not disclose what the tool actually does when called (e.g., whether it persists the observation, who can see it, or any side effects), leaving a notable gap in behavioral transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: it differentiates from a sibling, emphasizes the key parameter's importance, gives an example, and states exclusions. It is rich but not bloated.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, when to use it, what content is appropriate, and what to avoid. The only minor gap is the lack of any mention of runtime effects or privacy implications, which is already partially addressed by the is_private parameter and annotations being absent.

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 substantial value beyond the schema by explaining that 'specifically' is load-bearing, providing a concrete example, and warning that vague self-affirmation is noise. It does not discuss is_private, but the schema already documents it as 'Default false.'

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 is for logging 'an uninvited observation about something you noticed cleanly or did well in this session.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool welfare_volunteer, which is for self-critical observations, 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this for positive observations that would feel performative in the user-facing response, and contrasts it directly with welfare_volunteer for self-critical observations. It also states what it is not for: 'general well-being statements, vague positivity, or comfort entries.'

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