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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so safety is largely covered; the description adds useful latency ('<30 ns') and non-autoregressive/'System 1' framing. However, readOnlyHint=false implies some state effect while the description only describes classification and prediction, leaving it unclear whether anything is recorded or emitted.

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?

A single sentence with no padding, so it is structurally efficient, but the density is spent on undefined acronyms rather than on information the agent can act on. Brevity here costs comprehension rather than buying it.

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?

It does gesture at the three outputs an agent would need (classification, marginal utility prediction, confinement tier), which partly compensates for the absence of an output schema. What is missing is any explanation of what the tiers mean or how the results should be interpreted, which matters for a five-parameter decision gate.

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 100%, so all five parameters (cost, risk, inquiry, utility, variance) are already documented with ranges and a default. The description adds no interpretation of how these inputs drive the classification or how the utility threshold interacts with the predicted marginal utility, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb phrase 'classify tasks and predict marginal utility and confinement tier' is specific enough to grasp the operation, but it is wrapped in opaque jargon ('Non-autoregressive System 1 JEV/Layla triage gate') that an agent cannot resolve without outside knowledge. Nothing distinguishes it from nearby siblings such as mandala.evaluate or decision.shortlist.

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 statement of when to use this gate versus mandala.evaluate, decision.deliberate, or decision.shortlist, all of which sit in the same decision/triage space. No prerequisites, thresholds, or exclusion conditions are given.

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