decide_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the transformation and offers no information about side effects, permissions, determinism, failure modes, or any operational implications. The agent cannot infer whether this tool has external effects or requires special conditions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the verb, the resource, and the output in a compact form, making it easy to read and grasp.

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?

Given the complexity (10 parameters, 8 required, no output schema, no parameter descriptions, no annotations), this description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the decision logic, the meaning of inputs, or the significance of the output, leaving an agent to guess at nearly everything needed to use the tool 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?

The input schema has zero descriptions and the tool description provides no explanation of any of the 10 parameters. The phrase 'GATRI assurance plus policy/context' is a vague abstraction that does not map to specific fields like assuranceScore, policyPassed, impact, or sensitivity. The agent has no way to understand what each parameter means or how to construct a valid call beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific transformation: turning 'GATRI assurance plus policy/context' into a Vector Decision with the four enumerated outcomes. It names the output type explicitly and distinguishes the tool's core function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'assure_action' or others.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this decision tool is appropriate, nor does it point to sibling tools like gatri_trust_score or risk_assessment.

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