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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Report' implies a read-only status operation, but the description does not explicitly say whether it has side effects, how fresh the status is, or how delivery errors are represented. It adds basic behavioral context but leaves safety and data-source details implicit.

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 terse sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Report') and immediately specifies what is reported, which is ideal for agent scanning.

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 no-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate: it names the output focus (progress and delivery errors). However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not explain what the returned status looks like, what 'automatic capture' refers to, or when to prefer this over siblings, leaving notable gaps for an agent.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 a specific action ('Report') and a clear resource ('automatic capture progress and delivery errors'), so an agent can tell this is a status/health tool. It is distinguishable from siblings like stenographer_query_history and stenographer_ingest_exchange by its focus on current capture status, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description does not state whether this should be called for current status only, whether it should precede other operations, or when an alternative like query_history would be more appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description only implies a read-only operation through 'Get'. It does not disclose whether context is modified, compressed, or discarded, nor any side effects.

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 concise, with two short sentences that deliver the core purpose and usage trigger without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description gives a basic idea of the output ('compressed briefing + task-scoped relevant fragments') but lacks parameter details, return format, side effects, and relationship to sibling tools, leaving important context missing.

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?

The query parameter is not described at all, and session_id is only implied by the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent cannot infer parameter meaning from the description alone.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('compressed briefing + task-scoped relevant fragments'), and the trigger condition differentiates it from ordinary retrieval. However, 'task-scoped relevant fragments' is somewhat vague.

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?

It provides an explicit trigger ('Call when context window pressure hits'), which is useful, but does not mention alternatives like get_brief or when not to use this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it mention any potential consequences or required permissions. This partial transparency is insufficient.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words or extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without verbose elaboration.

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?

The description is minimal and lacks essential context. It does not explain what 'live running notes' means, what the output format or content will be, or any special considerations (e.g., whether the session must be active). Since there is no output schema, the description should have provided more detail about the return value, but it does not.

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?

The only parameter, session_id, is defined in the schema with type and minLength, providing basic expectations. The description adds no additional meaning or context about how the parameter is used (e.g., whether it refers to a session ID, a document ID, or something else), so it does not enhance the schema.

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 action ('Get') and the object ('live running notes document'), indicating the tool retrieves a brief for a session. However, 'live running notes' is somewhat ambiguous and does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like query_history, though the name and parameter imply session-specific retrieval.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as stenographer_query_history or stenographer_capture_status, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses significant automatic behavior: regex extraction, NAFE scan, CLAEG TERMINAL_SHUTDOWN checks, and periodic compression into briefs. It also cautions that heuristic flags do not establish truth. Side effects are partially described but not exhaustively.

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 dense but not wordy; it packs a lot of behavior into a single sentence. Jargon like NAFE, CLAEG, and STENO_TURN_LIMIT is unexplained, but the structure is efficient and free of filler.

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?

It explains when to call and what automatic processes occur, but it does not describe what the tool returns or the outcome of the compression, and key constants are undefined. With no output schema, this leaves some gaps for an agent.

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 low (only trace_id has a description). The description adds useful context for trace_id ('from omega_preload_context to enable cross-system correlation'), but role, content, and session_id rely on their obvious names and types. It partially compensates but does not fully cover the gap.

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 ingests a conversation turn and provides the trigger ('after every significant user or assistant message'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like query_history and get_brief by the ingest action, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It gives a clear call condition ('after every significant user or assistant message') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with sibling tools. The usage context is implied rather than fully specified.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation or state change ('Flag'), but gives no detail about persistence, side effects, return values, or required context such as a valid session.

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 short but not well-formed; the repeated 'priority priority' and unclear wording make it under-specified rather than effectively concise. It is not front-loaded with useful, accurate information.

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?

With three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine correct usage, parameter semantics, side effects, or what constitutes a successful call.

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% and the description does not mention exchange_id, label, or session_id. It fails to explain what these parameters mean, how they relate to the milestone, or what values are valid.

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 uses a specific verb ('Flag') and a resource ('a critical decision'), which gives a rough idea of the operation. However, the phrase 'for priority priority' is garbled and the description never clearly says it marks a milestone, so the purpose remains vague and does not differentiate it from sibling tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stenographer_query_history or stenographer_ingest_exchange. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs an FTS5 keyword search over all ingested exchanges, which is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered or paginated, or how session_id and cross_session affect the search scope.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the main verb and resource. It is not bloated, but it is so terse that it omits important operational details; the structure itself provides no additional guidance.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool confidently. It lacks expected return format, pagination or limit behavior, session scoping semantics, and any indication of whether results are per-session or cross-session by default.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for any of the four parameters, and the description does not compensate. It only implies that 'query' is a keyword search string; limit, session_id, and cross_session are left unexplained, so an agent cannot infer their intended values beyond the bare types and defaults in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') and identifies the resource ('all ingested exchanges'), and it names the mechanism ('FTS5 keyword'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like stenographer_capture_status or stenographer_ingest_exchange, which have obviously different purposes.

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 use case is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for keyword searching ingested exchange data. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no clarification on when session scoping should be applied versus cross-session search.

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