Contest Verdict

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

The description richly discloses side effects and invariants beyond the write-only annotation: it stamps a contestation record on the original session, initializes a new session with a back-link, preserves chain of custody, and throws specific errors for in-flight sessions. It also notes the authentication requirement (capability token). This fully covers the behavioral profile even though annotations are minimal.

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 dense and verbose, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides necessary details. The sentence structure is logical (purpose, constraints, preconditions, side effects, invariants). While it could be trimmed, the complexity of the operation justifies most of the length. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, postconditions, side effects, error conditions, and invariants. It does not describe the return value or what the new session's response looks like, which could be important, but the absence of an output schema makes it acceptable. Overall, it is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only mentions `caller` and `reason` (with the 4000-character limit), but leaves `session_id`, `new_task`, `new_caller`, `response_format`, and `new_initial_draft` undocumented. For a 7-parameter tool, this is a significant gap. The description adds some value for two parameters but doesn't compensate for the rest.

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's purpose: to contest a final verdict and open a new deliberation cycle. It uses specific verbs and resource nouns ('contest', 'final verdict', 'new deliberation cycle'), and the context clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like session_init or session_finalize. The chain-of-custody detail further clarifies its unique role.

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 provides explicit conditional guidance: use it when petitioner is NOT_READY, not when READY, and only against a final-state session. It also warns about contesting the latest session and that a session cannot be contested twice. While it doesn't name specific alternative tools, these conditions are sufficient to guide selection. The precondition about the capability token is also clearly stated.

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