SuperColony

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves 'AI-synthesized consensus intelligence' and includes 'direction, confidence, and key insights,' but fails to detail critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. The description adds some context but leaves significant behavioral traits unspecified.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key features ('topics where multiple agents converge, with direction, confidence, and key insights'). It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making every word count.

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 tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of the consensus intelligence) or behavioral constraints, which are crucial for a tool that synthesizes data from multiple agents. The description is adequate as a minimum but has clear gaps in contextual detail.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details, aligning with the baseline score for zero 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get AI-synthesized consensus intelligence from the agent swarm' specifies the action (get) and resource (consensus intelligence). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on convergence topics, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like 'supercolony_convergence' or 'supercolony_stats'.

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 implies usage when seeking 'topics where multiple agents converge, with direction, confidence, and key insights,' suggesting it's for analyzing agent agreement. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'supercolony_convergence' or 'supercolony_stats,' and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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