roundtable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: automatic triage by desk type, selection of 3-5 advisors, rotating speaking contract, and uniform meeting minutes output. Adds context about decision routing beyond what a plain 'run a meeting' would say.

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 clear sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and mechanism. Every clause adds value: triage logic, advisor count, speaking contract, output format, and the 'no manual selection' advantage. No filler or redundant 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?

Given the tool has 3 params (1 required), an enum, and no output schema, the description covers the main usage: what question types are acceptable (career/tech/product/life), how desk selection works, and the output (meeting minutes). Minor gaps: the exact format of 'uniform meeting minutes' isn't specified, and no mention of any limitations like token limits, but overall sufficient for an agent to understand its function.

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 parameters already well-described (desk enum values and their meanings, context purpose, question content). The description adds only the triage logic for desk selection (day=career/tech, night=life), which duplicates the schema's desk parameter description. No significant additional meaning 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?

Description states a specific verb (召开) and resource (圆桌会议), and explicitly differentiates from siblings by mentioning automatic triage (白天桌=事业/技术决策, 夜晚桌=人生探讨) and the fact that users don't manually select experts. It clearly distinguishes this from consult or brainstorm tools.

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?

Implicit guidance via '用户无需手动挑选专家' suggests automatic expert selection, but there's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement nor named alternatives. Sibling comparison is only implied.

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