Topic Triage Calibrate

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never says whether the tool writes anything (the 'deck_dir' parameter strongly suggests filesystem or deck mutation), whether operations are idempotent or reversible, or what permissions are required. It does disclose one useful behavioral trait — the batch partition cap of 20 — but that is far from sufficient for a tool with an unexplained side-effect surface.

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?

Two sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler, which is structurally sound. The density of undefined acronyms (HCT, JEV, EV) makes it read as terse rather than economical, since the words spent on jargon convey little to an outside agent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with 7 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and unclear side effects, the definition leaves too much unresolved for a tool this configurable. An agent could not confidently choose inputs or predict consequences from this description alone.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: 'text', 'label', 'domain', 'use_jev', 'deck_dir', and 'target_audience' are never explained. Only 'batch_size' gets indirect meaning via 'partitions into batches <= 20'; the rest of the semantics live solely in cryptic parameter names.

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 second sentence gives a concrete mechanical picture: slice the source into clinical sections, compute expected cards (EV), and partition into batches of at most 20. However, the first sentence leans on opaque internal jargon ('Sectional HCT', 'JEV System 1', 'Must-Cover Matrix') that an agent cannot decode, and nothing distinguishes it from likely-overlapping siblings such as topic_budget_plan or corpus_triage.

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 tool versus topic_budget_plan, corpus_triage, or count_batch_cards, nor any prerequisite (e.g., whether a corpus must be loaded first). Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the vague phrase 'calibrate budget'.

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