cognitive_hygiene

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. The clause 'without mutating canonical truth' is a real behavioral disclosure (implies a read-only/non-mutating computation), which merits more than a 1, but permissions, cost, failure modes, and side effects are entirely undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding or redundancy. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, and the sentence itself is efficiently constructed.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return format is partly covered, but the inputs and invocation context remain completely unexplained.

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?

Four parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for any of them (slice_id, family_id, query_text, max_active_objects). It neither explains what family_id identifies nor what 'max_active_objects' bounds.

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 verb 'Compute' is generic and the resources ('PCH/1 thermal map', 'bounded active working set') are undefined internal jargon, so an agent cannot infer what the tool actually produces or how it differs from any sibling. It is more than a bare tautology because a subject is named, but the naming conveys no actionable meaning.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The sibling list contains dozens of lifecycle/context tools, and nothing here routes the agent between them.

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