librarian_discuss

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses statefulness, the multi-turn expectation, the ASK: protocol, and — most valuably — thread isolation ("workers do not see the coordinator's turns") and reset scoping ("reset clears only your own thread"). It does not address failure modes or latency, which is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded, but the text is cluttered with uppercase emphasis, awkward hard line breaks, a duplicated article ("the the coordinator's"), and filler like "keep going until both sides agree the picture is complete." Trimmed, the same information would fit in two-thirds the space.

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 conversational tool with no annotations and a declared output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: how conversation state persists, how to reset, and who can see the thread. Return format is legitimately left to the output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for two of three params: reset's exact effect and scope, and caller's meaning plus the "leave it empty" instruction, reinforced by the per-caller thread explanation. `message` is only implicitly defined as the turn content, so one parameter remains unstated.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("DISCUSS with the librarian") plus the defining trait: stateful multi-turn memory ("remembers your prior turns"). That implicitly separates it from one-shot siblings like librarian_ask or librarian_tell, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts: verifying project understanding, asking about paths/tools, and answering the ASK: line back. Also gives the reset decision rule ("start a fresh discussion for a new topic") and encourages repeated trips. Missing an explicit when-not / named-alternative clause (e.g. "for a single fact, use librarian_ask instead").

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