maestro_get_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the tool forces a decision and skips questions, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the session becomes unusable or if the decision is irreversible). The return format is detailed, but the behavioral impact is partially unclear.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Example sections, making it easy to scan. The purpose is front-loaded. Could be slightly more concise, but the structure compensates.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description provides detailed return structure and usage example. It covers purpose, input, output, and condition for use. However, it omits potential error cases or prerequisites.

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?

The single parameter 'session_id' is described as 'Active session ID from maestro_start_session', which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare 'Session Id'. This helps the agent understand the parameter's origin and validity requirements.

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?

Description clearly states the tool forces a design decision using current answers and skips remaining questions. The verb 'force' combined with 'skip remaining questions' precisely defines the tool's unique action, distinguishing it from siblings like maestro_answer or maestro_abort.

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 states 'Use this tool when you want to proceed with partial information and skip the remaining interview questions.' This provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, though the sibling names hint at alternatives.

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