consult

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. There is no mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, output nature, or other operational details. The action names suggest intelligence gathering, but their actual behavior is undefined.

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 very short, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The action list is presented without context or definitions, and the description lacks structure to help an agent understand how to use the tool.

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 the tool's high complexity (28 parameters, multiple actions) and the presence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what actions do, what parameters mean, or what outputs to expect. This is insufficient for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 needed to explain the many parameters. It only lists possible action values, leaving parameters like 'visual', 'condensed', 'highlight', and 'compress_text' completely unexplained. No parameter semantics are added beyond the property names themselves.

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 'Pre-action intelligence gathering' is vague and lacks a clear verb+resource structure. The list of actions (preflight, recall, search, compress) hints at capabilities but does not define what they do or how they relate to the tool's purpose. It also fails to distinguish the tool from sibling tools like explore or reflect.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use consult versus other tools. The phrase 'pre-action' implies a temporal context, but it is not elaborated. There are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or conditions for use.

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