pv_decide

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 explicitly states 'WITHOUT executing' and 'Advisory only — nothing enforces that you honor the verdict,' which are the key behavioral traits. It also hints at the structural difference in execution tools. It does not disclose the output format or error behaviors, but the core non-execution and non-enforcement aspects are clear.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action ('Ask PrivateVault for a decision WITHOUT executing') is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds essential context about advisory nature and the contrast with execution tools. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the schema covers parameters, but the description omits what the returned 'decision' looks like (e.g., boolean, object, status) and any error behavior. Since there is no output schema, this gap could leave an agent unsure how to interpret the result. The description adequately covers purpose and behavioral nuance, but lacks return-pointer details.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters: 'args' (object) and 'capability' (string) with clear descriptions. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra parameter guidance, which meets the baseline for a 3. It does not go beyond the schema to explain constraints, examples, or relationships between 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 states the tool's function: 'Ask PrivateVault for a decision WITHOUT executing.' It names the resource (PrivateVault) and the action (ask for a decision) and explicitly notes the advisory-only nature, which distinguishes it from the execution-focused pv_* siblings. The contrast with 'pv_* tools where execution is structurally behind the check' 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 gives strong context: the tool is advisory and does not execute, contrasting with sibling tools that do. This implies it should be used for pre-flight checks or when a decision is needed without side effects. However, it stops short of explicitly stating 'use this tool when you need a verdict only' or naming a specific alternative like pv_exec, so it lacks a direct when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use recommendation.

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