Pass a state and typed questions to the configured decision port to get choices, scores, or answers without creating or changing a browser session.
Pass a state and typed questions directly to the configured decision port. This does not create or change a browser session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | ||
| questions | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | ||
| usage | Yes | ||
| answers | Yes | ||
| latency_ms | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states one non-behavior (does not create or change a browser session) but omits whether the tool mutates state, has side effects, requires authentication, or how the decision port behaves. This is a significant gap for a tool whose name implies decision-making.
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 two short sentences with no wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded before the browser-session disclaimer. It is structurally clean, though the extreme terseness leaves little room for important context.
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?
Given two parameters, nested object schemas, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. While an output schema exists so return values need not be explained, the description should at least clarify the state format and the typed question variants; instead it omits both.
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 description names 'state' and 'typed questions,' which loosely map to the two parameters, but with 0% schema description coverage and a deeply nested anyOf schema (choice/score/noul variants, instructions, criteria), it adds almost no semantic detail. It does not explain required fields, allowed question types, or the shape of state, so an agent must infer everything from the schema.
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 a specific verb and resources: 'Pass a state and typed questions directly to the configured decision port.' However, 'decision port' and 'typed questions' are jargon, and the description never explains what the tool actually returns or decides, leaving the purpose vague for an agent unfamiliar with this port. It does distinguish itself from browser session tools by negation, but the core outcome remains unclear.
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 only usage-oriented statement is 'This does not create or change a browser session,' which is a negative disclaimer rather than a positive when-to-use condition. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, and the siblings are all browser_* tools, making the intended invocation context ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.