aetre_triage_proposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the indicators are 'transparent, uncalibrated' and that the output is 'not a validated estimate of scientific quality', which addresses reliability. However, it omits other behavioral traits like whether the operation is read-only, error behavior, or performance implications. It's a modest disclosure but leaves gaps.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core action and outputs are front-loaded, and the caveat about not being a validated estimate is appended directly. This is efficient and scannable.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable overview but lacks important context. It lists the three stage routes but doesn't explain what they mean or how an agent should interpret them. The tool appears moderately complex, and the description doesn't clarify expected return structure or edge cases, making it only partially 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all four parameters. The description references the algorithm's nature but does not add specifics about parameter syntax or semantics beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given that the schema carries the descriptive load and the description adds limited extra meaning.

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 applies lexical routing indicators and calculates a VOI index plus a stage route, with specific verbs and resource. It also includes a caveat distinguishing it from validated quality estimates, which helps set it apart from similar tools like aetre_calculate_voi. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or why an agent should choose this over aetre_calculate_voi or aetre_batch_triage. An agent must infer the intended use case from the tool name and vague 'triage' concept.

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