decision_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the disclosure burden. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies state, or any side-effect implications. The word 'review' implies analysis, but explicit safety traits are missing.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and lists outputs, making it efficient. The parenthetical citation adds academic context but is not actionable; overall, the sentence remains concise and focused.

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 object parameters and no output schema, so the description must compensate with structural and output details. It does not explain how to construct the plan array or results object, nor what the response structure will be, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the structure and expected format of the 'plan' and 'results' parameters. It only repeats the parameter names without adding any detail about how they should be structured, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Review') and resource ('a finished plan against its results'), and explicitly lists output components (success rate, score, verdict, patterns, distilled lessons). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'plan' or 'plan_quality' that focus on planning or quality assessment.

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 clearly states the context for use: reviewing a finished plan against its results, with a theoretical framing (post-task metacognitive monitoring). It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to use it.

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