veto_benchmark

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it runs a full council debate, implying resource consumption, but does not disclose side effects like token usage or whether it is synchronous. With minimal annotations, the description could be more transparent about costs and timing.

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 two sentences: the first explains functionality, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded, has no unnecessary words, and efficiently conveys all essential information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly lists return fields (verdict, confidence delta, warning counts, council reasoning). All five parameters are described with context. The description compensates well for missing output schema and is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 100%, with each parameter having a meaningful description. The tool description restates the purpose of approach_a and approach_b but does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool compares two approaches via parallel council debates and returns a structured analysis. It specifies the verb 'compares' and the resource 'approaches', and distinguishes from sibling 'veto_council_debate' by mentioning parallel execution and structured output.

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 explicitly says 'Use when you have two valid options and want an unbiased council judgment before committing.' This provides clear context for use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, leaving slight room for improvement.

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