Run Evidence Judge Consensus Pass

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

The description details the behavior: parallel calls, promotion only when all peers return verified-satisfied with non-empty rationale and zero parser_warnings, disagreement leaves item open with reason and per_peer details, shadow mode emits events. Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly, with no contradictions.

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 dense but each sentence contributes necessary detail. It is front-loaded with version and summary. While it could benefit from bullet-point structure for clarity, it is not overly verbose given the complexity.

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 description is incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters (3 required) and no output schema. It omits explanation of draft, round, caller, item_ids, review_focus, response_format, and does not describe the return value or output structure. The agent would lack critical information to use the tool correctly in all scenarios.

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%, but the description does not explain most parameters (draft, round, caller, item_ids, review_focus, response_format). It only indirectly mentions judge_peers and shadow_mode. The description fails to add meaning for the majority of parameters, leaving the agent to infer from names.

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 it is a multi-peer consensus judge pass, explaining the action (fires judgeEvidenceAsk in parallel) and the resource (open checklist items). It distinguishes from the sibling tool session_evidence_judge_pass by noting single-peer callers should use that alternative.

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 clear guidance: requires at least 2 judge_peers, single-peer callers should use session_evidence_judge_pass, and all judge_peers must be enabled (CROSS_REVIEW_PEER_<NAME>=on). This explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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