Run Evidence Judge Consensus Pass

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It meaningfully explains that shadow mode never mutates state, active mode enforces unanimous verified-satisfied judgments with non-empty rationales and zero parser warnings, and self-judging causes fail-closed behavior. This goes well beyond the structured annotations, though it leaves the exact effects of 'promoting' somewhat vague.

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 compact and information-dense, consisting of two front-loaded sentences that establish purpose, prerequisites, mode differences, and key constraints. It has no filler, though the density of specialized terms like 'parser warnings' and 'promotes' could benefit from brief expansion.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is insufficient. It leaves critical operational details undefined, such as what 'draft' contains, how item_ids are selected, what review_focus does, and what the tool returns. An agent would struggle to construct a correct call with only this description.

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%, and the description only clarifies judge_peers and shadow_mode. It does not explain the meaning or usage of session_id, draft, round, caller, item_ids, review_focus, or response_format, which are essential for correctly invoking this tool with 9 parameters.

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 identifies the tool as an operator-authorized multi-peer evidence judgment process, with specific operational constraints. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like session_evidence_judge_pass through the explicit 'consensus' focus, though it does not directly name any sibling.

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 necessary prerequisites (operator token, two distinct judge peers) and differentiates active vs shadow modes, giving some contextual use guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as ask_peers, run_until_unanimous, or session_evidence_judge_pass, nor does it mention exclusions.

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