Adjudicate dispute

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: determinism, public recomputability of the rulebook, and automatic creation of refund records for refund verdicts. It does not mention potential side effects beyond refunds or error cases, but the disclosed traits are valuable and non-obvious.

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: the first states the main action and a key characteristic (deterministic, public), the second adds the automatic refund record side effect. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 a critical side effect, but it lacks any explanation of the parameter or the expected response/return value. Given the minimal schema and no annotations, this is adequate but leaves clear gaps for a single-parameter tool.

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?

The schema coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the disputeDigest parameter or how to provide the open dispute identifier. The agent must guess that the sole parameter is the dispute digest, which is not explicit.

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 triggers deterministic adjudication of an open dispute, distinguishing it from sibling tools like open_dispute and submit_dispute_evidence. The verb 'trigger' and specific resource 'adjudication of an open dispute' make the purpose 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?

It implicitly scopes usage to open disputes, which is a useful precondition. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it narrowly misses a 5.

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