bicameral_execute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: delegated steps return 'a diff plus verification output' while routed steps return 'instructions to edit yourself.' This goes beyond a typical vague one-liner. It still omits details about state changes, permissions, or reversibility, but the disclosure is meaningful.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: a clear summary, a breakdown of the two execution modes, and a retry note. There is no fluff, no repetition of schema fields, and the most critical information is front-loaded. This is an efficient, well-structured description.

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 tool with no annotations and a multi-step workflow context, the description explains the execution outcomes and retry feedback well. However, it leaves gaps around how to determine run_id/step_id, what distinguishes delegated from routed steps, and how this tool relates to the sibling tools. The output schema covers return values, but parameter provenance and selection logic are 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only addresses feedback by noting it is passed on retries, and it does not explain run_id or step_id at all. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides almost no parameter-level guidance for an agent.

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 and resource: 'Execute one step.' It clarifies the tool's core function and distinguishes between delegated and routed steps, which helps differentiate it from review/status siblings. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tools or contrast them, so it falls just shy 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 implies this tool is for executing a single step in the bicameral workflow, and it gives one direct usage tip: 'Pass feedback on retries.' It does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bicameral_review or bicameral_critique, nor does it provide exclusion conditions. This is adequate but not fully explicit.

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