prior_alignment_summary

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

No annotations provided; description discloses aggregation behavior but does not explicitly state read-only nature or lack of side effects. The description is accurate but could be more explicit about non-destructive behavior.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, output shape, breakdown dimensions, and time-windowing. No redundant information; front-loaded with key action and result.

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 no output schema, description effectively explains return value (ratios broken down by source). Parameter handling is clear. Sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function and expected output.

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% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. Description adds minimal extra context ('time-windowed') beyond schema. Adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Clearly states it aggregates prior_for_turn alignment records into a sycophancy metric with specific ratios and breakdown by source. Explicitly mentions time-windowing via parameters. Distinguishes from sibling tools like prior_for_turn and record_prior_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?

Implicitly suggests usage for high-level summary vs. raw records, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description is clear enough that an agent can infer it's for aggregated metrics.

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