arbitration__rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly explains the tool's deterministic nature, exactly-once execution, and the effects (allocation and escrow instruction). While it doesn't cover auth requirements or rate limits, the provided details are sufficient for understanding the tool's core 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?

The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence to convey purpose, behavior, and outcome. It is front-loaded with the key action and avoids any unnecessary words or repetition.

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 (deterministic ruling with dependencies on evidence and trust scores), the description captures the main outcome and idempotency but lacks explicit preconditions (e.g., case must have evidence and trust scores set). The absence of an output schema means the description should cover return value expectations, which it partially does by mentioning the escrow instruction.

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?

There is only one parameter, case_id, with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain the case_id parameter or its expected format/context. This leaves a significant gap for the agent to understand how to populate the parameter correctly.

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 that the tool issues a deterministic ruling by allocating dispute amounts based on evidence weights and trust scores, resulting in an escrow instruction. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like arbitration__submit_evidence or arbitration__get_case.

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 mentions exactly-once behavior and re-ruling idempotency, providing some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when all evidence and trust scores are ready. The guidance is implicit but not comprehensive.

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