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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what analytical outputs are produced, but not whether the operation is read-only, what inputs are required, how it behaves under incomplete data, or what failure modes exist. For a tool involving IRL and gaming detection, this is a significant gap.

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 with no filler and leads with the core action. It is compact and front-loaded, though the triple-clause structure prioritizes brevity over explanatory depth.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but an 8-parameter tool with zero parameter documentation and no annotations requires much more context. The description does not explain how the three advertised capabilities map to inputs or when the additional detection and assessment parameters are relevant.

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%, and the description names none of the eight parameters such as comparisons, proxy_metric, action_stakes, detect_gaming, or baseline_metrics. An agent cannot determine what data to supply or what each argument controls.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: infer human values via Bradley-Terry IRL, and adds two distinctive analytical goals: detecting Goodhart's law/specification gaming and assessing CIRL deference. This is clear and differentiates the tool from siblings like cognitive.infer or cognitive.verify_ethics_and_norms.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cognitive.infer, cognitive.assess_competence, or cognitive.verify_ethics_and_norms. No context, prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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