plurality

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

The description explains the core behavior (counting first-choice votes) but does not disclose tie-breaking behavior despite the tie_break parameter. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it partially reveals outcomes but omits 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. No redundancy; however, it could be expanded slightly to cover more details without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite a complex input schema with multiple ballot types and a tie_break parameter, the description provides minimal guidance. It assumes agents know plurality only uses first choices from ranking ballots, and does not address other ballot types or edge cases. With an output schema present, completeness is acceptable for basic use but insufficient for nuanced cases.

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 description must compensate. It only relates to the 'profile' parameter by mentioning ranking ballots, but ignores 'seed' and 'tie_break' entirely. This leaves important parameters 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 the tool computes plurality baseline using ranking ballots, with a specific rule: most first-choice votes wins. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like approval or borda by specifying the ballot type and voting method.

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 when to use (plurality voting) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like approval or borda. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned, which limits its helpfulness for selection.

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