jury_plan

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says what the deliberation yields, which is useful, but it never warns that a multi-model jury call is likely slow or expensive, that results may be cached, or what happens on timeout. The async ticket workflow is only described in the schema, not in the description.

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 definition is two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the outputs enumerated immediately afterwards. No filler or repetition appears, though the output list could be trimmed slightly.

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?

Not penalized for the missing output schema, specifically because the description enumerates the return artifacts, which is what an output schema would have provided. No output schema exists and no annotations exist, and the description substitutes effectively by naming the four deliverables. It could go further by explaining the async follow-up path, but it is adequate for a four-parameter deliberation tool.

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%, including the nested options object and its three flags, so the schema already defines every parameter. The description adds nothing about how 'task' should be phrased or how context_files or async_mode change the outcome, so the baseline of 3 holds.

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 names a specific verb ('Deliberate') and a specific resource ('an architectural implementation plan') and then lists the four artifacts produced: readiness score, risks, modifications, and a file execution plan. That is far more concrete than a tautology. It does not, however, separate this tool from its siblings jury_review and jury_ask, so an agent must guess which one to call when it has a plan.

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 ('an architectural implementation plan') but never states when this tool should be used instead of jury_review or jury_ask, nor does it give prerequisites, exclusions, or cost or latency warnings. With two close siblings available, the missing comparison logic is a real gap.

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