sentinel_calibration_drift

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a monitoring (read-only) behavior but does not explicitly state it. No disclosure of side effects, permissions, or whether it modifies state. 'Tracks and flags' gives some insight but could be more explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core function. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the lack of parameters and output schema, the description is largely complete. However, it could mention what the 'flags' look like or the nature of the output. As a monitoring tool, it is mostly adequate but leaves some behavioral details implicit.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: monitoring calibration drift of predicted probabilities against observed frequencies over time. It mentions specific metrics (Brier, reliability) and the action of flagging when recalibration is needed. It distinguishes from sibling sentinel tools like sentinel_outcomes or sentinel_hte.

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 does not provide any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare with alternative tools. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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