Heart Critique

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the tool's role (ethical assessment) and listing modes, which conveys non-destructive, analytical behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded, but the mode list is incomplete and misaligned with the schema. The mismatch detracts from conciseness effectiveness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the low schema coverage (0%) requires the description to compensate. It fails to explain the mode semantics or other parameters, leaving gaps for a complex tool with multiple modes.

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 has 0% description coverage; the description only lists modes but does not define them or explain other parameters (target, session_id, etc.). Additionally, there is a mismatch: description mentions 'empathize' and 'instruction_scan' but schema has 'empathy' and omits 'instruction_scan'. This reduces clarity.

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 'Assess ethical risks and human impact,' specifying a distinct verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like arif_mind_reason and arif_judge_deliberate by focusing on ethical assessment before action.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use before irreversible, sensitive, or dignity-affecting actions.' Does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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