typesafe_judge

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: a 25-question cap, independence of questions, shared state, and a raw-signal output style. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, limit, question types, and shared-state scope; the second clarifies the output style. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with nested object parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behaviors an agent needs: what it runs, against what state, at what scale, and what kind of result it returns. It could be more complete about the shape of the returned signals or the question format, but the annotations and high schema coverage carry much of the remaining burden.

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 meaning not present in the schema: the 'up to 25' limit and the 'independent, narrow' constraint directly qualify the questions parameter. It does not add detail about state or comparison_model, but those are already adequately described in the schema.

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 action ('Run'), a specific resource ('TypeSafe Choice, Score, or Noul questions'), and a clear scope ('against shared state'). It also says what the tool returns ('raw typed signals'), but it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools such as typesafe_route or typesafe_rank, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'up to 25 independent, narrow ... questions' clearly implies a batch-judgement use case, and 'for the caller's explicit policy' suggests the tool defers decision-making to the caller. However, no sibling alternatives are named, and there is no explicit statement of when not to use this tool, leaving routing largely to inference.

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