what_would_change_my_mind

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it issues no lease and changes nothing,' and it explains the ranking logic (beliefs confirmed by elimination rank first regardless of confidence). This goes beyond basic safety and provides insight into the tool's operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers key aspects, but it includes some rhetorical phrasing like 'Answers the question a reviewer actually asks' and the explanatory third sentence. While all sentences add value, a more streamlined version could reduce wordiness without losing meaning.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the ranking principle, and its side-effect-free nature. It lacks explicit mention of the response format, but that is not required given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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%, and the schema already describes both parameters ('How many beliefs to return, most fragile first' and 'Restrict to one objective. Omit for every goal.'). The description adds little beyond the schema's parameter details, so it meets the baseline without further elaboration.

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 names the cheapest experiments that would overturn a goal's conclusion, specifying the verb 'Name' and the resource 'cheapest experiments' within the goal context. It distinguishes itself from siblings by answering the reviewer's question — 'not what do you believe, but what would it take to be wrong' — which sets it apart from other analysis tools.

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 clear context: it is for identifying weak beliefs and cheap ways to falsify them, framing it as what a reviewer would ask. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or directly name alternatives, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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