parley_check_party

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the null-decision edge case (deadlock forces nothing, so holds is true), states that only red lines are evaluated, and describes the return shape. It does not explicitly say the tool is a side-effect-free computation, but 'replay' plus the read-only framing implies it.

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?

Front-loaded with the question the tool answers, then the call contract, then return semantics and the edge case. Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant with the schema or title.

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 two-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: the relationship to sibling tools, the null/deadlock behavior, and the returned fields (owner, holds). An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine cross-tool meaning: `party` is the same object used in parley_decide's parties, and `decision` is parley_decide's output or null for a deadlock. That interop framing is not visible in the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: replay one party's red lines against a decision and report whether any were crossed. The 'did the outcome cross any of them?' framing makes the operation concrete and separable from parley_decide (which produces the decision) and parley_verify_receipt.

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?

Clear context: pass the party spec that would go into parley_decide's parties plus the decision parley_decide returned. It also bounds scope by excluding soft preferences ('not judged here, only red lines'), giving a de-facto when-not condition. No explicit comparison to parley_verify_receipt, but the use case is unambiguous.

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