mind_predicate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it explains that Multi predicates never conflict, that Single/TemporalSingle raise a conflict_pending event on a second distinct object, and that unregistered predicates default to Multi. It omits whether register overwrites existing registrations or what get/list return, but the core behavioral semantics are clearly stated.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose then the behavioral consequence that justifies it. The 'v1.4:' prefix is minor version noise that could be dropped, but overall there is little waste.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the one thing the schema cannot: the semantic effect of each cardinality on downstream conflict detection and the default behavior. Return values of get/list are left unstated, but that is a minor gap.

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 three parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the raw enum by explaining what each cardinality value actually does to conflict detection, which is the semantic payload the caller needs.

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?

States a specific verb pair ('register and inspect') plus the resource ('predicate cardinality'), and the verbs map cleanly onto the action enum (register/get/list). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like mind_fact since it governs predicate metadata rather than asserting facts. It lacks an explicit sibling comparison, but the purpose is 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 frames usage indirectly by explaining that cardinality dictates how mind_fact(action="add") detects conflicts, which tells an agent why it might register. However, it never states when to register vs get vs list, nor when to leave the Multi default in place, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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