decide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the result is bounded, uses a local model, and the server only signals needs_escalation while the caller retains escalation responsibility.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the decision-kind and escalation notes each earn their place.

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?

With five parameters and zero schema-level property descriptions, the tool description should explain how the parameters interrelate, but it only covers decision kinds and escalation signaling. It does not mention how to provide context/question or what confidence_threshold controls, leaving a significant gap for correct invocation.

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%, yet the description does not explain required parameters like context and question or optional ones like confidence_threshold and request_id. It only elaborates on decision kinds, which is one small part of the decision parameter, leaving most parameter semantics to inference.

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 states a specific action ('Make one bounded decision'), identifies the resource ('resident local model'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling batch_decide by emphasizing 'one'. Listing the decision kinds further clarifies the exact scope of the tool.

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 'one bounded decision' phrasing implies single-use versus batch_decide, and 'resident local model' gives context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction. The escalation note describes caller responsibility but not how to choose among the sibling tools.

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