run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses output characteristics (findings list types, citation to charter rule) and a key design principle: false accusations are the worst bug, so ambiguity leads to silence. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether it reads or writes the 'ledger_path' and 'charter_path' files, which leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 compact: three sentences, each adding unique value. It front-loads the main purpose, then lists concrete output categories, then states a behavioral guardrail. There is no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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 the absence of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description gives a solid high-level picture but misses important context like the semantics of 'ledger_path', the exact return structure/value format, and any mutating side effects. It is adequate for a competent agent but leaves clear gaps that would require external investigation or guessing.

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 only 25%, and the description does not compensate. It clarifies that 'transcript_path' and 'charter_path' are the transcript and charter respectively through the main sentence, and 'gm' is documented in the schema, but 'ledger_path' is never explained. The description adds no semantic detail for this parameter, making it hard for an agent to know what to provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Referee a tabletop session transcript against a table charter.' It clearly states the tool's core function and distinguishes it from the sibling 'rules' tool by focusing on running the referee analysis rather than just defining rules. It also enumerates concrete outputs (conduct findings with cited violations), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to referee a transcript against a charter and get conduct findings. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with the sibling 'rules' tool, which would justify a 5, but the intended usage is clearly implied by the imperative phrasing and output description.

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