simarch_evaluate_decision

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 mentions scoring, selection, and output of a binary tree, but does not explain whether the decision is persisted, what permissions are required, whether the evaluation is deterministic, or what the binary tree output contains.

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 states the core actions without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool summary.

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?

For a tool with six required parameters, complex nested inputs, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the expected structure of criteria and alternatives, the meaning of the binary tree output, or any operational context needed to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 67%, and the schema documents org_id, objective, project_id, and owner_role_id. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying criteria and alternatives, and it does not clarify the complex nested structures for criteria weights or alternative scores.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: scores multi-criteria alternatives, chooses the optimal option, and outputs winning rationale with a binary tree. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which cover unrelated tasks like forming organizations and running simulations, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when evaluating decision alternatives.

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