arbitrate_evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing about side effects, persistence, whether arbitration requires prior bundles, permission needs, or what the result looks like — for an action-named tool, that is a substantial 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?

Two short clauses with no filler and the core purpose up front. However, brevity here reads as under-specification rather than efficiency — the second fragment is a bare schema fragment that doesn't form a complete thought.

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?

With four required parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should carry most of the explanatory weight, but it explains only one parameter's inner shape and nothing about behavior or output. An agent could not confidently call this tool from the description alone.

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%, and the description only partially compensates: it names the fields of the summaries array (source_type, confidence, quality_flags), which is useful, but leaves bundle_id, video_id, and time_range (including the expected time unit) completely 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?

"對給定證據執行仲裁" restates the tool name (arbitrate_evidence) without adding specificity: it never says what arbitration produces, whether it resolves conflicts, merges summaries, or returns a verdict. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_conflicts or get_report, which an agent would need to choose among.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the alternatives (get_conflicts, get_report, analyze_video). The only hint is the summaries input shape, which implies the tool consumes prior analysis output, but that is inference, not guidance.

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