get_definition_judgement_scaffold

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it states read-only behavior and lists contents, ensuring agent knows it is safe and non-destructive. It lacks details about any potential side effects or permissions, but for a read-only scaffold, this is adequate.

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 with two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Return', and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no parameters and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains purpose and components, making it complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable since none are needed.

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 returns a read-only method scaffold for definition judgement, lists specific components (polarity routing, checklists, verification template, uncertainty policy), and explicitly distinguishes it from solving tools, making its purpose distinct from siblings like solve_data_analysis.

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 indicates when to use (when needing the scaffold) and what it does not do (does not solve or select answers), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for solving, though sibling names imply other scaffolds.

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