judge

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it returns P(true), and the threshold (noul_act_at) defaults to 0.5 with guidance to set it lower for caution. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, purpose first, with embedded examples and no filler. Every clause earns its place; it is tightly structured and immediately scannable.

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 5-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, risk-check usage, and threshold behavior. However, backend and state_label are undocumented in both schema and description, which is a genuine gap for correct invocation. The described parts are complete, but the whole tool is not.

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 60% (state, question, noul_act_at are described). The description reinforces noul_act_at's meaning and clarifies question is yes/no, but it does not add any meaning for backend or state_label, leaving those parameters ambiguous. Partial compensation, not complete.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Ask one yes/no question and get P(true)') and gives concrete risk-check examples that distinguish it from decide/triage tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of full differentiation, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: risk checks with asymmetric costs where the rare yes matters more than the common no, illustrated with concrete questions. It does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so exclusions are absent.

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