Metis — Evaluate Against Layers

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

Description discloses that the tool returns a verdict (OK/REVIEW), the preferences to honor, and detected conflicts. It explains how to handle REVIEW results. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well, but could elaborate on edge cases (e.g., missing layers).

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?

Concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose and timing, second explains output, third defines args. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and front-loaded with key information.

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 presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description appropriately omits return value details. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, how to handle output, and parameter purposes. Could mention prerequisites (e.g., existing layers) but implicit in context.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to each parameter: 'answer: your drafted answer text', 'session_id: current session (optional)', 'task_type: optional routing task_type for narrower preference recall'. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Stage 6 — the evaluate gate' that 'checks the answer against the user's layers'. It specifies the verb (evaluate/check) and the resource (drafted answer against layers). Distinct from sibling tools by being a specific pipeline stage.

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 says 'BEFORE you reply to the user, pass your drafted answer here' and 'Resolve REVIEW items before replying'. Provides clear context for when to use and what action to take on output, though no explicit alternatives are mentioned.

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