fast_judge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output shape (JSON with choice, confidence, probabilities, is_confident) and defines the confidence_floor behavior. It does not discuss side effects, failure modes, or edge cases, but for a selection tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise and well-organized: purpose statement first, then return behavior, then usage guidance, then Args, then Returns. Each sentence earns its place, and the key usage instruction is front-loaded. The only minor redundancy is restating the return fields, but it's not wasteful.

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 4 parameters, nested options, and an output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: parameter semantics, confidence threshold, and output structure. It doesn't specify what happens when options tie or whether the choice key is guaranteed to be one of the option keys, but such edge details are minor. Overall, the description is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description's Args section fully explains all four parameters: question ('What to decide'), options ('Dict mapping candidate keys to descriptions (at least 2 options)'), context ('Optional context or state'), and confidence_floor with its default. This completely compensates for the absent schema descriptions.

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 'Instantly select the best option from a set of candidates,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It adds return details (choice, confidence, probabilities). However, it never explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like fast_guard, fast_verify, or fast_score, though the selection-focused purpose is distinct enough.

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 explicit usage context: 'Call this when you need to pick one item from a known set without slow deliberation.' This tells an agent when to use it, but it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions or contrast with siblings.

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