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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It lists the status information returned and the word 'check' suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that the call has no side effects, does not consume a probe, or has any rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states 'Lightweight check' and then lists all the specific status items. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 simple, zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what the tool does and what information it provides. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since none exist.

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 uses the verb 'check' with a specific resource (status) and enumerates exactly what it reports: attempts remaining, locked-out state, lock open state, and probes/submits spent. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools (observe_system, probe, submit_solution), which are action-oriented.

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 phrase 'Lightweight check' implies this is a quick informational tool to consult before performing actions like probing or submitting. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses that the call 'costs nothing' (no budget penalty) and is a read operation. It could further clarify absence of side effects, but the 'read' phrasing and cost disclosure cover the most critical behavior for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 crisp sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the action and lists concrete data items; the second sentence gives a clear directive. Every word 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists exactly what information the agent will receive (glyph alphabet, code length, budget, diagnostics legend, probe history). This is sufficient for a zero-parameter observation tool and aligns well with the sibling tools' actions.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The schema is empty and fully covered, so this dimension does not require compensation.

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: to read the lock's state, including the glyph alphabet, code length, attempt budget, diagnostics legend, and probe history. It uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('lock'), and the enumeration of contents distinguishes it from sibling tools like probe and submit_solution.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this first -- it costs nothing,' providing clear timing relative to other actions. This gives strong guidance on when to use the tool versus alternatives, and the mention of zero cost helps the agent decide to invoke it before any costly operations.

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 discloses the return type (ALIGNED/DISPLACED counts), the side effect (costs one attempt), and a critical behavioral trait (never opens the lock), going beyond the bare schema.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with 'Reconnaissance', but contains a slightly redundant final sentence ('Probe to deduce the secret') that largely restates the purpose. Otherwise each sentence 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers input, output, side effects, and a key constraint. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly without needing additional details.

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 schema's single parameter 'approach' has 0% description coverage. The description explains the candidate code as a string of glyphs exactly code_length long, which gives meaning to the parameter, but it does not explicitly map 'approach' to that value or discuss error handling for malformed input.

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 tests a candidate code and returns ALIGNED/DISPLACED counts. It distinguishes itself from sibling submit_solution by explicitly noting 'A probe NEVER opens the lock'.

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 implies usage for reconnaissance and 'Probe to deduce the secret', and warns it never opens the lock, which tells when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like submit_solution for when the lock should be opened.

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 fully carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the success condition ('opens the lock if answer is exactly the secret code'), the failure cost ('otherwise costs one attempt'), and the lack of diagnostics ('returns only a rejection -- no diagnostics'). This is thorough and honest.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It states purpose, behavior, and strategy without fluff. It is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 role in a puzzle-like game, the description covers all necessary context: the success outcome, failure consequence, budget implication, and a strategic directive ('Probe first; submit once confident'). No output schema is provided, but the description sufficiently explains behavioral outcomes without needing to detail return formats.

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 a schema with only a required 'answer' string and no description (0% coverage), the description adds significant meaning: 'answer' must be exactly the secret code. It clarifies the parameter's role as the final answer and the precise matching requirement, fully compensating for the schema's lack of detail.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Commit to a final answer.' It distinguishes itself from siblings (observe_system, probe, get_status) by focusing on submission rather than information gathering, which is exactly the differentiating action.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Probe first; submit once confident.' It also warns against premature submission ('Submitting before you have deduced the code wastes the budget'), effectively telling the agent when to use this tool versus its siblings.

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