advisor_consult

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses async behavior, immediate return of task number, and the ability to specify task_id for other sessions. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the consult is read-only or creates persistent artifacts, leaving some ambiguity.

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 compact, with a single sentence containing all essential information: async flow, follow-up, mode options, and task_id usage. It is front-loaded and every clause adds value.

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 async tool with an output schema, the description covers the key workflow, modes, and task_id semantics. It lacks explicit error handling or prerequisites, but these are not critical given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 0%, but the description explains two of three parameters: mode (with enumerated values) and task_id (for other sessions). The message parameter is self-explanatory, so the description meaningfully compensates for the schema's lack of details.

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 it initiates an asynchronous consultation and immediately returns a task number. It distinguishes from siblings by directing the user to advisor_poll for results, and the mode options (blueprint/unstick/review) clarify the tool's specific role.

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 follow-up guidance (use advisor_poll to check results) and explains the mode options, providing context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like advisor_create_task, though the async consult purpose is evident.

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