decision_card_infer_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully explains the deterministic mapping logic (e.g., any 'fail' leads to 'rejected-with-remediation'). It does not mention side effects, but the tool is purely computational, so this is sufficient transparency.

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 with inline enumeration. Every word conveys necessary information without redundancy.

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 simple nature of the tool and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the mapping logic and implies the output is a status string. It could be improved by explicitly stating the return type, but overall it is complete for an inference tool.

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%, so the description must add semantic value. It explains how the 'result' field values in the rubric array map to inferred status, which goes beyond the schema's structural definition. However, it does not describe the 'id' field or any additional properties.

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 infers the appropriate decision.status based on a rubric, using a verb ('infer') and specific resource ('decision.status'). It distinguishes from sibling decision_card tools like fetch, validate, inspect by focusing on status inference.

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?

While the description implies when to use this tool (when needing to determine a status from rubric results), it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or restrictions. Usage context is clear but lacks formal guidance.

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