decide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that each answer is returned with a probability distribution and defines the question type variants. However, it does not clarify whether decisions are deterministic or sampled, what side effects exist, or what the 'noul' type means.

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 compact and front-loaded, packing useful detail into two sentences without obvious filler. The notation is dense but readable, though the unexplained 'noul' costs it a perfect score.

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?

The tool has nested objects, a type union, and no annotations, so the description must do substantial work. It covers the main question structure and output shape, but leaves the 'noul' variant, the meaning of 'instructions', and the expected format of 'state' underspecified. An output schema exists, so omitting return details is acceptable, but invocation still has gaps.

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 0%, and the description compensates well for 'questions' by explaining the id-to-object mapping, type union, and criteria shapes for choice and score. The 'state' parameter remains vaguely described as the thing being decided about, so the compensation is uneven.

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 first sentence names the operation ('make typed decisions') and resource ('a state'), and the type union choice/score/noul gives concrete scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings classify/score/check, but the description is clear enough to understand what the tool does.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus classify, score, or check. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or the context in which decide is the right choice. Usage must be inferred entirely from the meaning of 'decide'.

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