Request Promotion Verdict

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

Annotations already mark the operation as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the result is always INDETERMINATE_LOCAL, selection is server-side, missing statistical inputs are named, and the tool emits an audit_request plus a cloud_job spec. 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the most important behavioral fact, and no filler. Every clause adds information about the outcome, outputs, or server-side behavior.

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 output schema covers return values, annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters. The description fills the behavioral gap with the invariant and emitted artifacts. Lacking only explicit context on when this tool should be preferred over the listed sibling tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description mentions 'missing statistical inputs' and mutation tiers indirectly, but adds no per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Request') and resource ('promotion verdict'), and immediately states the defining invariant: 'Always INDETERMINATE_LOCAL'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like warden.validate_genome and warden.explain_sizing.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. The only contextual clue is the title and the invariant, which imply a promotion-verdict use case, but the agent is left to infer when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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