copeland

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the core algorithm and that it errors on non-ranking ballots. However, it does not describe tie-breaking behavior, output format, or other edge cases.

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 three short sentences, front-loading the algorithm and key property, with no redundant 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 complexity of a voting rule tool with multiple parameters and an output schema, the description lacks details on return values, tie-breaking, and the seed parameter, leaving gaps for the agent.

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. It only indirectly references the 'profile' parameter by mentioning ranking ballots, but ignores 'tie_break' and 'seed' entirely.

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 the tool computes Copeland scores from pairwise wins/ties and is Condorcet-consistent. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'condorcet', but the unique scoring mechanism is implied.

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?

It mentions Condorcet-consistent and that it only works with ranking ballots, but does not explicitly specify when to use this over alternatives like 'condorcet' or 'borda'. The error condition for non-ranking ballots provides some guidance.

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