Explain ERDL Decision

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses the tool shows 'every rule that was checked and whether it fired' and references 'the last action', giving insight into internal state retrieval. Missing limitations (e.g., requires prior evaluation) but sufficient.

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?

Short, front-loaded with purpose, bullet points for usage. Every sentence serves a purpose; no redundancy.

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?

No output schema, but description does not explain the return format or structure of the decision trail. Mentions 'shows every rule' but not how it's presented. Incomplete for a complex tool with nested objects.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds value by linking tool_name and tool_args to 'same as you used for erdl_evaluate', providing cross-tool context. No additional format details, but helpful.

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?

Description clearly states 'Show the FULL decision trail for the last action' and answers 'why did you do that?'. It distinguishes from siblings like erdl_evaluate (which runs evaluation) by focusing on explanation after an action.

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?

Explicitly lists when to use: when user asks why, confused about DENY/unexpected ALLOW, or for transparency. No explicit exclusion, but context is clear and actionable.

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