Attach one observed outcome to a Wu Wei decision. Actual cost, latency, and energy are optional and remain explicitly unknown when omitted. One append-only, hash-bound outcome is allowed per decision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| decision_id | Yes | ||
| success_score | Yes | ||
| actual_cost_usd | No | ||
| actual_energy_wh | No | ||
| actual_latency_ms | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that optional metrics 'remain explicitly unknown when omitted' and that outcomes are 'append-only, hash-bound,' revealing immutability and integrity properties. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the core behavior is well disclosed.
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 long, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence provides substantive information: the action, the optionality semantics, and the constraint. There is 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?
Given an output schema exists and the tool is a simple append operation, the description covers the essential context: purpose, optional fields, and immutability. It lacks explicit mention of how to obtain a 'Wu Wei decision' or any prerequisites, but the sibling tool 'route_task' likely provides such context. Overall, it is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.
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 adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'Actual cost, latency, and energy are optional and remain explicitly unknown when omitted,' giving semantic weight to null defaults. However, it does not elaborate on decision_id, success_score, notes, or request_id, leaving those to schema-only understanding. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but is incomplete for all parameters.
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's first sentence, 'Attach one observed outcome to a Wu Wei decision,' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool's purpose. It further distinguishes itself by specifying 'one append-only, hash-bound outcome is allowed per decision,' adding scope not present in sibling tools. Without ambiguity, the tool records decision outcomes.
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 the primary use case: after a Wu Wei decision is made, record the observed outcome. It also sets a clear constraint: only one outcome per decision, which guides when recording is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives like 'submit_evaluation' or state when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but describe_agent and get_agent both return agent information, and best_next_steps vs route_task could be confused in decision-making contexts. The descriptions help clarify, so the ambiguity is limited.
The vast majority of tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_agent, list_agents), but best_next_steps breaks the pattern and compute_efficiency_report reads as a noun phrase. These are minor deviations from an otherwise consistent style.
With 14 tools, the server sits comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool serves a specific function in the agent lifecycle or compute-routing workflow, so the count feels well-scoped without unnecessary bloat.
The agent lifecycle is well covered with create, delete, get, list, describe, export/import, evaluation, and ledger access. The compute side includes profile registration, task routing, outcome recording, and reporting. Minor gaps like no direct agent update or profile listing exist, but they are workable.