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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden, but it only lists high-level capabilities. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what inputs it requires, what outputs it produces, whether state is modified, or any operational constraints. Some analytical behavior is implied, but key safety and execution traits are absent.

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. Each listed capability adds information. It sacrifices parameter and usage guidance for brevity, but as a concise summary it is 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?

Although an output schema exists, the tool is complex, has eight optional parameters with no schema descriptions, and no annotations. The description does not explain how to frame comparisons, how to interpret action_stakes, what CIRL deference assessment requires, or how the gaming detection is triggered. This is materially incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, but it does not. None of the eight parameters such as comparisons, action_stakes, baseline_metrics, or projected_metrics are explained. The reference to specification gaming weakly maps to detect_gaming, but this is too indirect to give an agent meaningful parameter guidance.

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 names a specific, multi-part function: inferring human values via Bradley-Terry IRL, detecting specification gaming, and assessing CIRL deference. This is clear about the tool's resource and analytical intent. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like cognitive.infer_human_values, but the added capabilities separate it from a generic inference tool.

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 when to use the tool: whenever human value inference, Goodhart detection, or CIRL deference assessment is needed. However, it provides no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to alternative sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria rather than being guided.

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