arbitration__describe_agent

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Self-description' implies read-only introspection but provides no details about side effects, required permissions, or what information is returned. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand behavior.

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?

Extremely short but at the expense of informativeness. 'Fleet-standard self-description' is not a clear, well-structured description. It lacks key elements and reads more like a placeholder than a meaningful explanation.

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 no output schema and no parameter guidance, the description should explain what the self-description includes (e.g., capabilities, metadata). It fails to provide enough context for the agent to understand what calling this tool will yield.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already fully covers 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?

Description only says 'Fleet-standard self-description' which is vague and tautological. It does not clearly state that the tool returns metadata about the arbitration agent, nor does it distinguish from other describe_agent tools for different modules.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain that this is the tool to introspect the arbitration agent, while other arbitration tools handle disputes, cases, or evidence.

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