borda

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: scoring method, handling of truncated ballots (average of remaining points), and error condition if ballots are not rankings.

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?

Four concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: function definition, contrast role, truncated ballot handling, and error condition. No extraneous information.

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 output schema exists (not shown), return values need not be explained. The description covers input constraints and key behaviors well, though it omits parameter details for seed and tie_break.

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 0%, so description provides critical context: only ranking ballots are valid, and scoring details. However, it does not explain the 'seed' or 'tie_break' parameters, which have defaults but remain undocumented.

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 clearly states it performs Borda count on ranking ballots, explains the scoring rule (top gets m-1), and distinguishes from siblings by noting it is Condorcet-inconsistent and clone-sensitive, useful as a contrast rule.

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?

Implicitly guides usage by specifying input must be ranking ballots only and noting its role as a contrast rule, but lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer Borda over siblings.

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