peer_turn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It tells the agent what to prepare but not what the tool does internally (e.g., how it processes the turn, side effects, response format). The behavioral impact is largely hidden.

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 relatively short but contains extraneous instructions that are more procedural than definitional. The mismatch between 'task' and 'message' wastes some clarity. Overall, it is acceptably concise but could be more focused.

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?

Given the complexity of a peer review tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to continue the session, or what agents should expect after calling peer_turn. Key contextual gaps remain.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by instructing to attach full contents via `files` and never use prose summaries for diffs. However, it incorrectly refers to a 'task' parameter that does not exist in the schema, which detracts from semantic clarity.

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 implies the tool is for following up in an existing peer session, but it does not explicitly state that it sends a new turn in a peer review. The phrase 'Set `task` with goals, affected behavior, and specific concerns' conflicts with the schema, which uses 'message' instead of 'task'. This mismatch reduces clarity.

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 procedural instructions (read files, attach diffs) but does not explain when to use this tool versus sibling tools like peer_ask or peer_debate. There is no guidance on alternatives or when not to use it.

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