decide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the outputs (winner, ranking, breakdowns, explanation) but does not elaborate on how weights are applied, what breakdowns entail, or any potential side effects. It is a read-only calculation tool, but this is not explicitly clarified.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that captures the core function and outputs. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is too brief given the tool's complexity and the lack of output schema or annotations. It omits crucial details about parameter structure (especially the 'scores' object and 'method'), which are needed for correct invocation. The return value is at least partially described, but the input handling is unclear.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'options' and 'weighted criteria' but does not explain the structure of the required 'scores' object, the 'method' parameter, or how weights within criteria are represented. This leaves the agent without sufficient guidance to construct valid inputs.

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's function: ranking options against weighted criteria and returning a winner, ranking, breakdowns, and explanation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like decide_score or decide_compare_two, which focus on specific aspects.

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 implies the use case (ranking options with weighted criteria) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like decide_sensitivity or decide_compare_two. There is no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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