expert_consult

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

由于未提供任何注解，描述承担了全部行为披露责任。它涵盖了启用检查、状态竞争（进行中不重试）、输入语言要求（briefing 用英文，源码保持原样）。缺失了对返回形式、潜在延迟或超时行为的说明，但相对于同类工具已属充实。

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?

四句话，没有多余信息，条件、枚举约束、并发警告和格式要求全部前置。紧凑而可执行。

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?

对于一个有9个参数、7个必填、无输出架构的复杂工具，描述覆盖了启用状态、并发、参数闭集和语言要求等关键决策信息。考虑复杂度，信息量足够启动调用，但缺少对超时等待体验的说明。

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?

架构描述覆盖率达到 100%，每个参数都有详细的描述，描述本身只额外给出了英文填写要求和源码原样保留的格式提示。基线为 3，因为架构承担了绝大部分参数含义，描述的价值增量有限。

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?

描述以清晰的中文动宾短语开头，指明是将本地调查后的难题升级给达到极高能力的 ChatGPT 专家。它说明了工具是什么，但没有明确区分同类工具（兄弟工具缺失），与usage指南部分有重叠。

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?

明确说明适用条件：仅在本仓库已开通时可用（标记文件 .claude/expert-consult.json）；reason 必须是闭集之一；已有咨询进行时不要重试。这些排他性条件为智能体提供了完整的调用语境。

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