提交质询，交贾诩收敛

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

The description discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: this tool does not return the final answer, but a job the host must still execute. It also states that no second review will follow and that identical input can be safely retried, reinforcing the idempotentHint annotation without contradicting it.

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 tight sentences, with the core behavior front-loaded and the retry-safety note compressed into a single clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema available, the description need not explain the job structure. It supplies the essential workflow contract: execute the job, deliver the final strategy and weakest link, no second review, and safe retry. Naming the preceding sibling explicitly would make it fully complete, but the precondition is clear enough.

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 50%, and the critiques parameter already has a useful schema description while session_id is self-explanatory as a UUID. The top-level description adds little per-parameter meaning beyond 'complete three critiques,' so it does not fully compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 states a precise action: receiving the complete three-party critiques and returning a Jia Xu-generated job. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling begin/submit tools by naming the convergence stage and the no-second-review 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?

The precondition is explicit ('接收完整三家质询'), and the postcondition is also clear: the host must execute the returned job and deliver the final strategy. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead for earlier or later stages, 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.