table_evaluation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose meaningful traits: 'Always self-attested, including when the calling agent is the DM' and 'table authority remains with the caller or protected host.' However, it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or permission requirements beyond authority, leaving 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 two dense sentences with no filler. Each sentence earns its place: one states the core action and output, the other states the authority model. It is concise and front-loaded.

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 a highly complex schema with nested objects for table_policy, asserted_facts, and table_decision, yet the description omits any explanation of these input structures or how they relate. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of input guidance, making the description inadequate for reliable invocation.

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%, and the description must compensate but does not. It mentions 'named SRDCheck query' and 'scoped result' but offers no explanation of query_type, params, table_policy, asserted_facts, policy_context, or table_decision, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance for any of the 8 parameters.

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 ('Adjudicate') and identifies a precise object ('one named SRDCheck query') and output ('deterministic table.evaluation/1.0'), making the tool's function clear. The wording distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_make or save_check by focusing on adjudication and table.evaluation projection.

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 implies use for adjudicating SRDCheck queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The 'Always self-attested' clause provides some context about caller roles, but no comparative guidance is given.

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