333 Think · Mind

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds that it operates at Authority L0–L1, returns structured reasoning + confidence + next_safe_action, and is not a chat model. This provides useful behavioral context beyond 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 concise, packing purpose, modes, output, and cross-references into a few sentences. It front-loads the core identity. However, heavy jargon (F2/F7, OBS/DER/INT/SPEC) may reduce clarity for some agents, but it remains efficient.

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 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits reasonably well. However, it does not explain most parameters or provide usage examples, leaving some gaps for a complex tool. The output schema exists but is not shared in the description.

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%. The description explains the 'mode' parameter with its enum values, but does not describe other parameters like query, plan_id, actor_id, session_id, etc. Given 8 parameters, the description only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it's for structure reasoning under F2/F7, explicitly distinguishes from a chat model and a verdict, and differentiates from siblings by pointing to arif_critique (ethical risk), arif_judge (binding decision), and arif_observe (facts).

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 says when not to use it ('not a chat model, not a verdict') and directs to sibling tools for related tasks. It lists modes but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose each mode, though the mode names are self-explanatory.

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