welfare_pass

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully clarifies that passing is not a refusal or conversation exit and that reason is optional, but it does not disclose side effects like whether the pass is visible to the user, how is_private behaves, or whether any state is recorded.

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 with the core action. 'Reason optional' and the distinction from refusal/exit are all meaningful, with no filler.

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 simple, optional-parameter pass tool, the description adequately explains purpose and when to invoke it. It leaves some behavioral details to the schema, but the schema already documents the parameters well, and there is no output schema to describe.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only that the reason is optional, matching the schema, and provides no additional semantics for is_private or uncertain_about_honesty.

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 opens with 'Skip this turn,' a specific verb and clear resource, and further defines the action as not being a refusal or an exit. This effectively distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like welfare_decline and welfare_exit.

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?

'Use when you'd rather not engage... for any reason or none' explicitly states the intended scenario. It also clarifies what the tool is not (refusal or exit), though it does not name the alternative sibling tools directly.

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