instinct

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 well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's idempotent ('safe to call repeatedly'), explains promotion thresholds (seedling <5, mature >=5, rule >=10), mentions demotion only if decay is enabled, and describes the return structure. However, it doesn't cover potential side effects like performance impact or error conditions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and return details. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though the return values section could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant 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?

Given the tool's complexity (stateful promotion logic), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, behavioral traits like idempotency, and references related tools, leaving no obvious gaps for an AI 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space on parameters, but it does imply that no inputs are needed for this operation, which aligns with the empty 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 specific action ('Re-evaluate every pattern's level based on current confidence') and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining its unique promotion logic (seedling→mature→rule). It's not just a restatement of the name 'consolidate'—it explains what consolidation means in this context.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool ('Call at session end, or after a bulk import') and when not to (since 'session_summary() calls this automatically'). It also mentions downstream tools that benefit from its execution (suggest, export_rules, CLAUDE.md injection), giving clear context for its role in the workflow.

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