RLCD / DPO preference pair generator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it scores and emits JSONL, but does not mention that it may write a file (despite the writeFile parameter), whether the operation is read-only or mutative, or any system interactions. It is silent on side effects and prerequisites, leaving a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to clarify whether the JSONL output is returned directly or written to a file, which is critical given the writeFile parameter. It also omits details about the Jev Score primitive's behavior, potential errors, or dependencies. An agent would need additional investigation to use it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it ties 'candidate answers' to the items parameter but does not elaborate on the writeFile parameter or its default behavior. The description's contribution is marginal, staying at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 a specific verb ('Score'), a resource ('candidate answers'), and a concrete output ('chosen/rejected JSONL pairs for local DPO training'). It uses the 'Jev Score primitive' to add specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like jev_rerank, which might also involve ranking, but the DPO training context gives it enough distinction.

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 usage for generating preference pairs for DPO training ('for local DPO training') but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of alternative tools. The context is clear but not directive; an agent would infer the use case rather than receive explicit guidance.

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