chimera_ethical_eval

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

The description reveals key behavioral details: rule-based processing, checks on four ethical principles, and outputs a score plus recommendation. With no annotations, this is sufficient transparency for a simple evaluation tool, though it could mention limitations 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 two crisp sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and immediately lists the principles and outputs. Every sentence 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?

Given only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., score range, recommendation text) or any edge cases, which would improve completeness for an evaluation tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a single 'action' parameter already described. The description adds context that the action will be evaluated against ethical principles, which adds some meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 this tool performs rule-based ethical scoring of an action, listing the four principles (non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, beneficence) and the return of a score and recommendation. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like chimera_safety_check or chimera_verify.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., chimera_deliberate, chimera_safety_check). The context is only implied by the name and description, but no when-not-to-use or comparison is provided.

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