evaluate_options_with_scenarios

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only describes the high-level sequence (simulate, then decide) and the actions of projecting and ranking, but remains silent on side effects, read-only status, data handling, or any constraints. This gives minimal insight into what happens during execution.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the composite nature and main actions. It is easy to scan and lacks redundancy, but the extreme brevity limits the amount of information conveyed, making it concise but not fully substantive.

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 — 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations — the description is highly incomplete. It does not specify the return format, how options and criteria should be structured, or the expected behavior of the composite pipeline. An AI agent would lack critical context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description itself does not explain the meaning or format of any parameter. It mentions 'option' but not 'criteria' or any other fields, leaving the required inputs undefined. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanatory text.

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 labels the tool as a composite of 'simulate -> decide' and states it 'project[s] each option, rank[s] the outcomes,' which communicates a clear two-step purpose. It distinguishes itself from individual sim_* and decide_* sibling tools by presenting a combined workflow, though 'project' is somewhat vague and the required 'criteria' parameter is omitted.

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 'COMPOSITE' prefix implies that this tool is appropriate when both simulation and decision-making are needed, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this over running sim_run and decide separately, nor does it describe any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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