consult_gpt5

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, but it only mentions planning/coding assistance. It does not disclose potential spending, budget checks, streaming behavior, or cost confirmation implications, despite parameters like task_budget and confirm_spending suggesting these are important.

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 one concise sentence with no repetition or filler. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly terse for the underlying complexity; still, it earns a 4 for its compactness.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to provide complete context. It lacks details about spending, streaming, conversation alternatives, and expected return behavior, making it only minimally adequate.

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 description coverage is 100% since all 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Consult') and resource ('GPT-5') with a clear scope ('planning or coding assistance'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like start_conversation or continue_conversation, which could also involve consulting GPT-5, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as start_conversation or continue_conversation. 'Planning or coding assistance' implies a use case, but there are no exclusionary or alternative-recommendation details.

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