decide_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at the output format (matrix + ranking) but does not explain normalization logic, whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, error behavior, or side effects. This leaves the agent without sufficient information to anticipate outcomes.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified and reads more like a heading than a functional description. While brevity is positive, the extreme minimalism harms clarity and the description does not fully earn 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 the tool's complexity (multiple parameters, nested objects, many sibling tools) and the absence of annotations and output schema, this description is grossly incomplete. The agent would not know the expected input structure, output details, or how to correctly invoke the tool, making it nearly unusable without additional information.

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 schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It never explains what options, criteria, scores, or method are for. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter semantics completely unexplained.

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 says 'DECIDE. Full normalized scored matrix + ranking.' This implies the tool produces a normalized score matrix and ranking, but it does not clearly state the action (e.g., 'evaluate options') or the inputs. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like decide_sensitivity or decide_compare_two, making the purpose vague though not purely tautological.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the many decision-related siblings, this is a significant omission.

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