request_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the ruling is 'appended to the plan's decisions log (audit trail) and returned,' which informs the agent of the side effect and output. It does not mention potential errors, permissions, or reversibility, but the core behavior is transparent enough for a decision-request tool.

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, tightly packed with the core action, result, and usage condition. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and each sentence earns its place. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 description explains the purpose, when to use, and the outcome (ruling appended to log and returned). However, it omits parameter semantics and does not mention any preconditions or failure scenarios. Given the output schema exists, return format is covered, but the missing parameter guidance is a significant gap for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 provides no information about the parameters. The names (plan_name, story_key, question, options, context) are somewhat self-explanatory but not fully defined. For example, what exactly constitutes 'options' or the expected format of 'context' is unclear. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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's purpose: 'Escalate a blocking decision to the overlord, which rules on the user's behalf per the decision policy.' It specifies the action, the resource (overlord), and the trigger condition ('when you are blocked on a choice the user would normally make'). This is distinct from siblings like list_decisions or review_story, which have different intents.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Call this from a story agent when you are blocked on a choice the user would normally make.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the conditional context is clear. A sibling like review_story might be used for non-blocking review, but this is not stated.

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