triage_options

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 known. The description adds meaningful process detail: it scores all options, retains the strongest few, and decides over those, with both kept and discarded returned. This goes beyond the annotations by describing internal behavior and output visibility.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and usage trigger are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable transparency detail. Every phrase earns its place; no redundant information.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return format is not needed), the description is incomplete for correct invocation. Several parameters (act_at, margin, backend) are unexplained in both schema and description, and the description does not clarify how to construct the state or instruction fields beyond minimal schema hints. The high-level workflow is clear, but the tool's full input contract remains opaque.

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 only 43% (3 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description does not compensate: it never mentions act_at, margin, backend, or clarifies instruction beyond the schema. It implies the meaning of 'keep' and 'options' only indirectly, but the undocumented parameters remain a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 two-step action (narrow then decide) on a resource (options), and gives a concrete trigger threshold (>20 candidates). It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from typical decision tools by focusing on large lists, which differentiates it from siblings like decide or decide_many without needing to name them.

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?

It provides an explicit usage condition: use when there are more than about twenty candidates, because accuracy degrades beyond that. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, but the threshold serves as a clear guideline. The note about returning the shortlist and discarded items also hints at transparency expectations.

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