sentinel_calibration_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the safety profile: 'Read-only public GET,' telling the agent this is a non-mutating, unauthenticated call. It does not mention rate limits or the time granularity of the snapshots beyond 'daily,' but the essential behavioral traits are covered.

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 tight sentences with no waste: the first names the payload, the second states the use case and access profile. The most decision-relevant content (what it returns) is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only endpoint with no output schema or annotations, the description supplies the return contents, the purpose, and the access semantics. A minor gap is the absence of any statement about snapshot history depth or update cadence.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 gives a specific resource (daily calibration snapshots) and the exact metrics returned (q90 conformal width and empirical coverage), plus drift alerts. It is clearly distinct from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related sentinel_accuracy tool.

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 states a concrete use case: 'check whether Sentinel's 90% intervals still cover 90% of outcomes.' However, it names no alternatives or exclusion conditions, so an agent must infer when to prefer this over sentinel_accuracy or sentinel_current_risk.

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