evaluate_decision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and meaningfully discloses hidden behavior: automatic injection of UNRESOLVED_OR_OTHER and calibration of probability dispersion. This goes beyond what the schema reveals, though it does not describe result format or side effects.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the behavioral details are presented efficiently, making every sentence earn its 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?

The description covers the core purpose and automatic behaviors, but with no output schema and no usage guidance, an agent still lacks clarity on what the tool returns or when to prefer it over related tools. It is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only reinforces the 'simple list of options' aspect, which is already covered by the options parameter description.

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 a specific verb ('Evaluates') and resource ('architectural and implementation decisions'), and clarifies the input style ('simple list of options'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like evaluate_command_safety or jevguard_evaluate, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings, no exclusions, and no alternative tool mentions. 'Simple list of options' only implies a use condition; it does not establish when this tool is appropriate.

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