self_critique

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool works 'without LLM' and names output components, but it does not explain how scoring is performed, what severity thresholds mean, whether the artifact is modified, or what the result format looks like.

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 a single compact sentence with no wasted language and is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, its extreme terseness contributes to the missing usage and parameter details.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse for a tool with a non-trivial scoring and verdict model. It names the artifact and tier parameters nowhere, leaving the agent unable to confidently call the tool.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter. The meaning of 'artifact' is only weakly implied, and the role of the 'tier' enum (weak/medium/strong) is not explained at all.

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 that the tool produces a structured self-critique with weighted checklist, scoring, severity, and verdict, and that it operates without an LLM. This is more specific than the bare tool name, but it does not distinguish the tool from related siblings such as score_compliance or run_verification.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tools are alternatives. An agent must infer usage from the phrase 'self-critique' alone.

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