Request human decision

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

Discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: affected units wait while others continue, it returns impact and independent work, and it does not block or wait for an answer. This is substantial non-obvious behavior that helps the agent understand side effects and asynchronous semantics.

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?

Four tight, information-dense sentences with no filler. Key behavioral distinctions are front-loaded: queueing, no guessing, partial waiting, and non-blocking behavior.

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?

Given an output schema and 75% schema parameter coverage, the description covers the important behavioral context: what is blocked, what continues, and what is returned. It could add a bit more guidance on how checkpoint and affectedUnitIds relate to the waiting behavior, but the essential calling context is clear.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds general context about human-judgment categories but does not enrich individual parameters like options, checkpoint, or recommendation beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Queue') and resource ('a question that needs human judgment'), with a clear scope of categories. The description distinguishes this from sibling tools like record_decision by emphasizing it queues a question rather than recording an outcome.

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?

Gives an explicit condition for use: when human judgment is needed, and instructs 'Never guess instead.' It clarifies non-blocking behavior and partial waiting, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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