decisio_calculate

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return values and the behavior with partial data. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or error conditions, leaving some uncertainty about the tool's operational behavior.

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?

Two sentences, direct and efficient. The key action and outputs are 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 is simple (one parameter), and the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and its behavior under partial data. No output schema exists, but the return values are named. Some edge cases are not addressed, but for this simple tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema already documents decision_id as coming from decisio_create_decision, and the description doesn't add further parameter details. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool runs AHP calculation on a decision, with specific outputs (ranked options, criteria weights, consistency check). This distinguishes it from siblings like decisio_compare or decisio_quick_decide, which target different decision processes.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Works best when all pairwise comparisons are set, but will produce results with partial data.' This tells when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when to avoid it.

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