vaibot_decide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the ordering (before risky actions) and the run_id return. However, it does not state whether the call itself is side-effect-free, whether it blocks, or any authentication or rate-limit implications. It adds some context but remains incomplete.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states purpose, the second explains when to call and what to expect (run_id). Front-loaded and efficient.

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 critical workflow (call before risky actions, use run_id with finalize) and explains the decision outcomes. However, with no output schema, it does not fully describe the response structure beyond run_id, leaving some ambiguity about how the decision is returned. Reasonably complete but with a notable gap.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description mentions risky action types (exec, file writes, network calls) but does not add specific parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Ask VAIBot whether an agent action should be allowed, requires approval, or is denied.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying a return value (run_id) for use with vaibot_finalize.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this BEFORE executing any tool that could be risky (exec, file writes, network calls).' This indicates when to use it and implicitly when not to (for non-risky actions). References to vaibot_finalize clarify the post-execution flow.

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