Laya System-1 analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds value beyond them: it discloses the return shape (calibrated choice/score/noul answers with probabilities) despite there being no output schema, and explicitly disclaims any robot control. It does not discuss cost, latency, or how probabilities should be interpreted, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 tight sentences with the core action and the key non-control caveat front-loaded, and no filler. The brevity is appropriate, though the compressed phrasing concentrates undefined jargon (Laya, noul) in a very small space.

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 genuinely complex, with nested oneOf question variants, and there is no output schema to lean on. The description covers return shape and scope but leaves the semantics of each question type and the expected criteria format largely to the schema, which is thin on prose.

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 100%, so the schema already defines both the state input and the structured question object. The description only echoes the three question types present in the schema and adds no guidance on constructing criteria or naming questions, which is where ambiguity actually lives.

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?

"Run Laya once over a state and typed questions" gives a specific verb and resource, and the mention of calibrated choice/score/noul answers separates it from siblings like system1_laya_info and system1_laya_health. The term "Laya" and "noul" are never defined, so an agent unfamiliar with the domain still has to infer what is being executed.

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 clause "Analysis only; it does not control the robot" gives a clear boundary on what this tool will not do, which implies it is for inference rather than actuation. However, it never states when to pick this over system1_laya_info or system1_laya_health, nor any prerequisite for the state being well-formed.

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