Judge Deliberate

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

The description states 'Render final constitutional verdict,' implying a mutation (writing a decision), but the annotation readOnlyHint=true indicates the tool is read-only. This is a direct contradiction. No other behavioral details (e.g., side effects, authorization needs) are provided beyond the conflicting annotation.

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 relatively short (two sentences plus a mode list). However, the mode list is inaccurate, and the first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose. The conciseness is acceptable but the inaccuracy reduces 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?

The tool has 9 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema description, and a contradictory description. The mode mismatch leaves the agent without clear guidance on how to use the tool. Essential context like return format or behavior of different modes is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description lists modes ('judge', 'compare', etc.) that do not match the schema enum ('judge', 'validate', 'hold', 'rules', 'armor', 'probe', 'notify'). No other parameters are explained. This is misleading and offers no semantic help for the agent.

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 states it renders a final constitutional verdict, providing a clear verb and resource. However, the listed modes in the description do not match the schema enum, causing confusion. Sibling tools are differentiated by domain (judge vs. bridge, evidence, etc.), but the mode mismatch undermines clarity.

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 says to use when a decision is ready for arbitration and binding judgment. However, it offers no guidance on when not to use the tool or any alternatives. Given the sibling tools (e.g., arif_heart_critique, arif_triage), this is a missed opportunity to clarify distinct usage contexts.

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