decide_noul

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the purpose. It does not mention whether the tool is deterministic, pure, read-only, or what side effects might occur, leaving an agent without critical safety or performance expectations.

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, well-formed sentence that communicates the core behavior directly without filler. The key qualifiers 'binary' and 'TRUE or FALSE' are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 the tool has a nested object parameter, no annotations, and no schema description coverage, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent about acceptable assertion syntax or state structure. The existence of an output schema covers return values, but input guidance is lacking.

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 by explaining parameter meaning. It adds only that the assertion is binary and judged against the state, but does not describe expected formats, constraints, or examples for 'state' or 'assertion'. This is minimal compensation for the absence of schema-provided details.

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 states a specific verb ('judge') and resource ('binary assertion') and explicitly defines the possible outcomes (TRUE or FALSE). This semantically distinguishes it from siblings like decide_choice and decide_score, which imply non-binary outputs, even without naming them.

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 use when a binary true/false judgment on an assertion against a state is required, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools. The context is basic and not fully explicit.

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