council_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Run the bounded personal council' without mentioning side effects, permissions, state changes, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent blind to the tool's runtime behavior.

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 sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It contains no meaningful detail and does not earn its brevity, as it offers no value beyond restating the tool's name.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters and an output schema, but the description provides no information about return values, invocation context, or expected behavior. This is highly inadequate for a tool of this complexity, especially given the absence of annotations.

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%, meaning all 9 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information, failing to compensate for the complete lack of meaning around task, mode, budget, max_rounds, and other parameters.

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 uses 'Run' as a verb and 'the bounded personal council' as a resource, giving a clear syntactic structure. However, the phrase is vague and does not explain what the council is, what 'run' entails, or how it differs from sibling tools like memory_manage and system_status.

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 provides no guidance on when to use council_run versus the sibling tools, nor does it mention any alternative approaches or exclusions. It simply states the action without context.

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