should_proceed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns 'proceed/downgrade/abort', but does not explain the criteria for each outcome (e.g., based on current usage thresholds). This is adequate but could be more explicit about the decision logic.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return values, followed by usage timing. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: purpose, return values, and when to use. It could include a brief note about the decision mechanism or an example, but it is largely complete for its complexity.

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%, with the schema already thoroughly documenting both parameters (task_size enum values with token estimates, description as free-text). The main description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond 'Call BEFORE...', which is usage, not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Decide whether to proceed with a task given current usage. Returns proceed/downgrade/abort.' It identifies the specific verb 'decide' and the resource 'proceed/downgrade/abort', making it distinct from sibling tools which are informational (cache_stats, usage_delta, etc.).

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool: 'Call BEFORE producing large responses, doing huge file reads, or starting expensive operations.' This provides clear context and implies when not to use (small tasks), though it does not explicitly exclude or name alternative tools.

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