result_arbitrate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the three-layer arbitration algorithm, expert weighting rules, fallback to qwen when all workers are busy, and the exact return format (winner, arbitration layer, weight details, reason). It also states it does not create tasks, making side effects clear.

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 a single dense paragraph but uses numbered layers (①②③) to structure the arbitration logic, front-loading the purpose. It is comprehensive without being bloated, though it could benefit from bullet points for readability.

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 is complete for an agent to call correctly: it explains the return values (since there is no output schema), specifies the required candidate count, details the fallback behavior, and names the intended caller. No critical information is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the ≥2 candidate requirement, the expert weight mapping (claude=3/codex=2/others=1), optional confidence weighting, and the arbiter selection fallback—all of which are not in the schema.

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 arbitrates conflicts when multiple workers give different answers, using a specific verb ('仲裁') and resource ('多 worker 对同一问题给出不同答案'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it only arbitrates and does not create tasks, and by specifying its intended caller (Orchestrator).

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 explicitly states when to use it: '供 Orchestrator 合并多 worker 并行产出时调用' (for Orchestrator when merging parallel outputs from multiple workers). It also clarifies a negative constraint ('只裁决不建任务'), which helps rule out misuse, though it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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