Decide (multiple typed questions)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a behavioral trait: 'all answers in one round trip' indicates a single composite call. It also explains the question structure (choice/score/noul and their criteria formats), which helps predict invocation behavior. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication, rate limits, or the output format. For a tool named 'decide', the absence of explicit side-effect disclosure is a gap, though the description provides more than a bare 'Decide' statement.

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 tightly written sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and the round-trip behavior; the second zooms into the question object structure. There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail. Every phrase earns its place.

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 is moderately complex (nested object with three variants, multiple siblings, no annotations, no output schema). The description thoroughly covers the input structure but omits the return value format ('all answers' is vague) and any error or edge-case behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least characterize what an 'answer' looks like. This gap leaves an agent uncertain about how to interpret the result, so it is not complete enough 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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are generic ('The context/input' and 'Map of question name -> question object'). The description adds meaningful semantics by specifying the three question types, the instructions/criteria structure, and the exact formats for choice.criteria ({key:desc} map), score.criteria (ordered string array), and noul (no criteria). This goes well beyond the schema, though the 'state' parameter remains only vaguely defined as 'The context/input'.

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-resource pair: 'send a state and a map of typed questions, get all answers'. It clearly identifies the tool as 'the full Jev call', which distinguishes it from single-question siblings like jev_classify, jev_score, jev_check, and jev_gate. The title 'Decide (multiple typed questions)' reinforces the purpose.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool when you need to process multiple typed questions in a single round trip, as opposed to the more specialized/individual sibling tools. It does not explicitly state 'when not to use' or name alternatives, but the phrase 'full Jev call' and 'map of typed questions' imply a composite scenario, so the usage context is clear without needing exclusions.

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