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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses output content (chronological events with actors, backends, forks) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe to call without side effects. Given the audit focus, it is adequate but could be improved.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences plus an Args line. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes essential details without redundancy.

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?

The description explains the tool's output (chronological events with actors, etc.) but does not specify the return format or structure. Given no output schema, this is a minor gap for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by stating 'session_id: Session to audit' beyond the schema's title 'Session Id'. This clearly explains the parameter's role.

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 as a full forensic audit of a session, listing chronological events with specifics (who, what, when, why) and distinguishes from sibling tools like phantom_sessions (listing sessions) and phantom_fork (managing forks).

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 implies use for auditing a session but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance like 'use phantom_sessions to find session IDs first'.

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

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

Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden. It accurately describes the read-only behavior (listing backends with models and latency). No side effects or additional constraints are expected for such a simple query tool, so transparency is good.

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?

Single sentence front-loads the action and key details. No redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and simple listing nature, the description provides all necessary context. It covers what the tool does and what information it returns.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying which backends are included and what information (models, latency) is returned, going beyond 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 it lists available compute backends, with specific examples (local GPU, Vertex AI, Ollama) and attributes (models, latency). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like phantom_audit, phantom_fork, etc.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the tool's purpose as a listing function is clear, and given zero parameters and no alternatives mentioned, usage is straightforward but lacks explicit context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the fork works on sealed sessions and returns a Fork ID with TIBET provenance, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the original session is modified), permission requirements, or potential failure modes. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose, followed by elaboration, use cases, and parameter descriptions. No wasted sentences; every part adds value.

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 has 4 parameters, 0% schema description, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: purpose, usage, parameters, and return value. It lacks error scenarios and deeper explanation of TIBET provenance, but is largely complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema only provides types and defaults. The description explains all four parameters, including examples for 'actor' and 'intent'. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could specify expected formats for session_id and intervention constraints.

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: 'Fork into a session — inject an intervention (multi-AI handoff).' It also provides a list of use cases, making it distinct from sibling tools like phantom_seal and phantom_sessions.

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 clear context: 'Any actor can inject a signed message into a sealed session.' It includes example use cases (correct AI mistakes, add context, human approval, cross-AI collaboration) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, which would improve it.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that output is chronological and includes provenance but lacks details like read-only nature, performance implications, or error conditions. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Highly concise: two sentences for purpose, one for parameter explanation. Front-loaded with key action, no 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 simple schema (1 param, no output schema), description sufficiently defines tool purpose, input, and output nature (chronological history with provenance). Could be improved with details on default behavior or time range, but it's complete enough for basic use.

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 description includes an 'Args' section explaining the parameter 'session_id' as 'Session to get fork history for', adding meaning beyond the schema which only has a type and title. No enum or nested objects, but coverage is compensated.

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 it returns the history of all forks/interventions in a session, with chronological ordering and TIBET provenance. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like phantom_fork (which creates forks) and phantom_audit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like phantom_audit or phantom_status. It doesn't specify retrieval scope, filtering options, or when not to use it.

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

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

Description mentions creating a sealed session and returning session ID/token, but does not disclose whether the original session continues, requires specific permissions, or what 'sealing' means for session state. With no annotations, the description should be more transparent about side effects and prerequisites.

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 purpose and example, then lists arguments. The curl command is helpful but slightly verbose. Overall concise and well-structured, though a few words could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, example usage, all parameters, and return values. Missing are error behavior, authentication, and rate limits, but the core functionality is well explained.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains each of the 10 parameters in plain language, including structure for complex types like conversation and files. This adds significant value beyond the input schema, which only provides names and types.

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 seals a session for cross-device resume, distinguishing it from sibling tools like phantom_sessions (list) and phantom_fork (fork). The verb 'seal' is specific and the resource 'session' is explicit.

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 gives a curl command example for resuming, implying use for cross-device transfer, but never explicitly states when to use this tool versus siblings like phantom_fork or phantom_status. No exclusion criteria or alternative guidance provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool lists sessions, but does not indicate whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or whether it returns all sessions at once (e.g., pagination). Lack of info on side effects or safety.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and key details. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. No wasted text.

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 list tool, the description is nearly complete. It specifies what is listed (sealed and active sessions) and the output fields (IDs, descriptions, timestamps). It lacks mention of ordering, pagination, or any limits, but given simplicity, it is adequate.

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 has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it could mention that no parameters are required. It correctly omits param info.

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 it lists all Phantom sessions (both sealed and active) and specifies the returned fields (IDs, descriptions, timestamps). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like phantom_seal or phantom_audit.

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 implies usage when one needs to list sessions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., phantom_status, phantom_audit). There are no when-not conditions or comparisons.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavior. It correctly indicates a non-destructive status check but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response structure.

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 concise sentence starting with the verb 'Check'. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It could briefly mention the output format, but it's sufficient for a basic status check.

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 has zero parameters, so the description naturally handles parameter semantics. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate since no further explanation is needed.

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 checks Phantom server status and lists the specific aspects (uptime, sessions, backends). It distinguishes from sibling tools like phantom_backends and phantom_sessions by being a general overview.

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 implies usage for a quick status overview but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus more specific siblings like phantom_backends. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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