ask_ollama_council

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses several behaviors: it synthesizes one answer while returning raw answers under `sources`, calls optional `quorum`/`degraded` result fields, uses a local signed-in `ollama` daemon by default (no API key needed), and notes that model configuration falls back to ASK_FABLE_OLLAMA_COUNCIL. Minor gaps remain (e.g., no mention of error handling if no models are available or daemon is down), but the description is unusually transparent for a tool with no annotations.

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 dense and information-rich, but it is a long, single run-on block with many stacked clauses and parenthetical asides (e.g., the broad scope/refusals list is packed into the tail). The most critical routing information ('DIRECTIONAL', 'counterpart to ask_council', 'default to ask') is front-loaded, which is good, but the overall structure would benefit from splitting scope/refusal rules from invocation details. It earns a 3 — content is all relevant, but readability suffers.

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 complex tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers invocation modes (explicit model list vs. server default), auth expectations (local signed-in daemon, no API key needed), scope rules (what is in/out of scope), and output behavior (synthesized answer plus `sources`). It lacks a note on the shape of the synthesized answer beyond 'one answer' and doesn't explain what happens if models are invalid or unreachable, but the high schema coverage and rich routing details make it largely complete for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving concrete example model ids, clarifying the optional 'ollama:' prefix, and explicitly stating the effect of omitting `models` (server-configured set). It also explains the `sources` relationship to the `question` parameter's output. This extra context justifies a 4 rather than a baseline 3.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource ('Ask several Ollama Cloud models the same SOFTWARE/ENGINEERING question at once') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling `ask_council` by stating it is the Ollama-only counterpart. It also clarifies scope (broad engineering questions, with explicit refusals), making the tool's identity unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'reserve it for a contentious or hard-to-reverse decision', 'not for routine questions (default to `ask`)', 'at most one council call per problem'. It also names both alternatives (`ask` and `ask_council`) and distinguishes when to choose each, which is exactly the routing help an agent needs.

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