review_claim_tensions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool's purpose and clarifies that tensions may represent genuine disagreement even when claims are accurate, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any side effects (e.g., whether it modifies claims, idempotency, or constraints on repeated calls). Since this is a record-keeping tool with no obvious destructive behavior, the description is adequate but not rich. A score of 3 reflects the missing details on what happens when called.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a usage condition. No wasted words, and the key information is easy to scan. It earns a 5 for efficiency and clarity.

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 (two parameters, one nested). The description covers the main purpose and the mandatory condition, but it does not explain the meaning of the parameters or any edge cases like what happens if tensions already exist. The mention of 'after the claim graph is stable' is helpful for ordering, but it could be more explicit about prerequisites or interactions with sibling tools. Given the output schema exists (per signal), return values may be covered there, so this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the parameters at all. 'research_id' and 'tensions' are not described beyond the schema's field titles. The description implies that tensions are the main payload but does not clarify the structure of ClaimTension (e.g., required fields, purpose of resolution). The agent would have to infer parameter meanings from names alone. This is insufficient for a tool with a nested object.

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 verb 'Record' and the resource 'cross-claim tensions', with a temporal condition 'after the claim graph is stable'. It also adds the mandatory condition for contested sessions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like register_claims or assess_claims. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states 'Mandatory once for contested sessions', which gives a clear condition for when to use it. It also implies it is not for non-contested sessions, though it doesn't name alternatives. The phrase 'after the claim graph is stable' provides context on sequencing relative to other steps. However, it could be more explicit about when not to use it or list alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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