sofa_guidance

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

The word 'status' weakly implies a read-only operation, but with no annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not disclose whether this tool is safe to call repeatedly, what 'freshness' means, or what kind of guidance is returned. The description gives no meaningful insight into side effects or operational 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?

The description is one short sentence with no filler. The current-session scope is included up front, and no extra words waste the agent's attention.

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?

This is a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, so the description must explain what the status means and what an agent can expect. The vague phrase 'Skill freshness/guidance status' leaves the core semantics unexplained and gives the agent little confidence about what it is actually getting.

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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to document.

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 identifies a resource (skill freshness/guidance status) and scopes it to the current session, so it is not a tautology. However, it lacks an explicit action verb and uses the ambiguous term 'guidance' without defining what that means, leaving the tool's actual purpose vague.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sofa_session_summary or sofa_attention. It merely mentions the current session, with no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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