check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only mentions metacognitive aspects but does not explain what the tool does (e.g., returns a report, mutates state, or requires specific permissions). No behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 extremely short, but brevity is not conciseness when it omits essential information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently worded, offering little value for the agent.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and any parameter explanations, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent would have no idea what to pass as 'query', what 'top_k' controls, or what the returned data looks like. It fails to provide even minimal context for correct usage.

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 by explaining the parameters. It fails to mention 'query' or 'top_k', leaving their purpose and format entirely unexplained. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 states the tool is a 'metacognitive check' covering confidence, contradictions, gaps, and blocked states, but it lacks a specific verb or resource. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'reasoning_trace' or 'conflict_advice', which likely cover similar concepts. The purpose remains ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions are provided. The description offers zero usage context.

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