bias_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'checks' biases, implying read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, authorization needs, or return format. This is insufficient for a tool that could be invoked autonomously.

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 and front-loaded with the trigger. It uses a clear structure with an args block. However, the args block is slightly informal and could be better integrated into the main text.

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 has an output schema (not shown), so return value documentation is not required. However, the description omits details like which 12 biases are checked or how results are presented. This is adequate but leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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%, but the tool description includes an args block that defines the parameter as 'The decision or recommendation being evaluated', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's title-only field. This helps the agent understand what to provide.

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 as a 'Cognitive Bias Scanner' that checks 12 biases against a decision, and provides a specific trigger scenario. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'bayesian_update' or 'calibration_predict' that also aid decision-making.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'TRIGGER: Call this BEFORE finalizing any architectural decision or adopting a new technology.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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