get_consensus

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry transparency. It reveals that it aggregates votes and weights by expertise/confidence, but does not state side effects (read-only inferred from 'get'), idempotency, or required data availability. Moderate transparency.

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 plus an Args line, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Very concise.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify return values. It mentions 'collective decision with confidence score' but lacks detail on the structure (e.g., is it a single number or object?). Also does not mention error cases like missing decision. Somewhat incomplete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds 'The decision to analyze' for the single parameter. This provides meaning beyond the schema's title, though it is minimal. Adequate for a simple parameter.

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 purpose: 'Get the current consensus status for a decision.' This is specific with a verb and resource, and it differentiates from siblings like cast_vote, close_decision, etc.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it aggregates votes, but lacks direct guidance on when not to use it or preconditions (e.g., votes must exist).

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