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

The description adds context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying what gets cleared (log and metadata). It is consistent with the annotation and gives agents understanding of the tool's impact.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly conveys the purpose. No superfluous words, front-loaded with action and resource.

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 simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is complete. It tells an agent exactly what the tool does and when to use it.

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?

There are no parameters; the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and it provides no irrelevant information.

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 action 'clear' and the resources 'consultation log and metadata'. It distinguishes this tool from the read-only siblings (read_advisor_log, read_advisor_meta).

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 phrase 'to start fresh for this project' implies appropriate usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or mention of alternatives, though the sibling tool names provide implicit contrast.

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

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

The description reveals multiple behavioral traits beyond annotations: it maintains a per-project consultation log with entry (5) and token (~6K) caps, and explains the subscription model ('no API key needed'). Annotations already mark it as read-only and open-world, and the description adds valuable context without contradiction.

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 approximately 100 words and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: subscription details, history management, limits, and explicit use cases. No redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, mechanism, context management, and suitable use cases. It could be slightly improved by mentioning the response format or an example, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool.

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 has 100% coverage for 5 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the history cap (entry count and token budget) that directly informs the include_history parameter. It does not repeat schema descriptions, and the effort parameter's enum is not elaborated, but the overall context aids parameter usage.

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 explicitly states 'Consult Claude Opus 4.7 for strategic advice', providing a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from its siblings (log management) and lists specific use cases like architecture decisions and complex debugging.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use the tool ('Use this for architecture decisions, complex debugging, code review'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives. The siblings are for log management, so no direct competition, but exclusion criteria are missing.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the log's content ('consultation log from prior Opus advisor calls'). There is no contradiction and additional detail is provided.

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?

Two concise sentences, both adding value: first states action, second states usefulness. No extraneous words.

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 simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description adequately explains what data is returned and when to use it. Minor lack of detail on format, but sufficient.

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% for the only parameter 'last_n', which already explains its meaning. The description does not add further semantics beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'consultation log from prior Opus advisor calls', and it distinguishes from sibling tools like clear_advisor_log and consult_opus.

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?

It provides context for when to use ('reviewing past advice', 'getting context on decisions'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives like read_advisor_meta.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the fields read (latency, token counts, effort levels), but does not disclose additional behaviors like behavior on empty results or error handling. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, front-loading the core action and then stating the use case. Every sentence is meaningful with no superfluous wording.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives a high-level overview but omits details like return format, data structure, or scope limitations (e.g., 'all consultations' implies no filtering). While siblings provide context, the description alone is moderately complete but could be more thorough.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the sole parameter 'last_n'. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 reads structured metadata (latency, token counts, effort levels) from consultations, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_advisor_log' and 'clear_advisor_log' by focusing on metadata vs logs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions it is 'useful for understanding cost and performance patterns,' implying a use case, but fails to provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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