decision_adversary

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 usefully discloses one-shot behavior, the adversarial mechanism, and the statuses returned. However, it does not explain side effects, required permissions, or whether the pass modifies any state, which leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the action and protocol; the second gives a crisp usage rule. Every phrase 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 there is no output schema, the description adequately outlines what is returned ('findings plus a session status') and lists the possible statuses. It could be slightly richer on the response shape or effect of high_stakes, but it is sufficient for a 3-parameter 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it mentions 'claim or proposed change' and 'high-stakes decision' but does not elaborate on the context or high_stakes parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Run') and a concrete resource ('Consensus Hardening Protocol adversarial pass against a claim or proposed change'), and it names the core output (scores, findings, session status). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like decision_gate or engine_status.

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 clear usage context: 'Use before locking any high-stakes decision.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is specific enough to orient an agent.

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