Provide a question, choices, and optional evidence to receive a selected choice with probability distribution, while leaving action responsibility to the calling agent.
Return Drex's selected choice and probability distribution for a closed decision.
Drex returns a decision; the calling agent remains responsible for any action.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| choices | Yes | ||
| evidence | No | ||
| question | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully clarifies that Drex only returns a decision and that the calling agent remains responsible for any action, but it does not disclose determinism, how probabilities are derived, persistence, or side effects.
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 only two sentences and is front-loaded with the primary result. The second sentence earns its place by defining responsibility after the call, and there is no redundant repetition of schema fields.
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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an otherwise opaque optional evidence parameter, this description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what a valid evidence string should contain or what the probability distribution will look like, leaving important invocation details missing.
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 adds almost no parameter meaning. The role of 'evidence' is especially unclear despite having a default value, and the description does not explain acceptable question format, choices constraints, or how they map to the returned probability distribution.
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 outcome: returning Drex's selected choice and a probability distribution for a closed decision. It clearly identifies the tool's action and result, though there are no sibling tools to differentiate from, so it cannot earn full credit for distinction.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The phrase 'closed decision' vaguely implies a decision with provided choices, but the description never states selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.