system1_decide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully publishes the return contract (status decided|abstained|error, plus decision, confidence, rationale, request_id) and the 0-1 confidence scale, which is real behavioral value. However, it omits prerequisites, whether the call costs money or has side effects, latency guarantees, and failure semantics for the 'error' status.

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 sentences, zero waste: the action is front-loaded and the return contract follows immediately. Every clause adds 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned statuses and fields, and the 6-parameter schema is largely self-documenting at 83% coverage. It leaves behavioral prerequisites and error handling unaddressed, but for a simple decision call it is close to complete.

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 83%, so the schema already documents question, options, context, request_id, and min_confidence well. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond echoing 'confidence (0-1)' and 'decision', so the baseline of 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?

States a concrete verb+resource: 'Ask the configured System-1 provider for a fast decision.' An agent can distinguish it from system1_health and system1_capabilities, which do not produce decisions. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or contrasting scope, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose; there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over system1_capabilities or system1_health, nor on when abstention is expected. The 'fast decision' framing hints at the low-latency use case, but nothing states when-not to call it.

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