jury_ask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the response shape (pattern, confidence, tradeoff matrix, examples), which is genuinely useful. It omits other behavioral facts of consequence: that 'context' accepts a relative file path the tool presumably reads from disk, and any indication of latency or cost (the schema hints at a 'quick' low-latency mode the description never mentions).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return contract; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 five-parameter consult tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return values well enough to call it correctly. The remaining gaps - sibling differentiation and the file-reading behavior of the context parameter - are real but secondary.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no parameter meaning at all - it never mentions focus, quick, context, or the question/query alias relationship, so it neither compensates for nor improves on the schema.

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 and resource: 'Consult the multi-model architecture council for targeted design advice', plus an explicit statement of what comes back (pattern, confidence, tradeoff matrix, examples). It does not differentiate itself from siblings jury_plan and jury_review, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone which of the three to pick.

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 phrase 'targeted design advice' implies a design-time consult, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among jury_plan and jury_review. The agent must infer the boundary from tool names alone.

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