council_ask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Runs a follow-up turn on that seat's session (it may re-read files)' and 'returns its reply synchronously,' which are meaningful behavioral details. It also discloses the critical constraint that it 'Never reveals the model.' While it doesn't mention potential side effects or error conditions, it covers the most important behavioral aspects for a probe tool.

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 compact and every sentence contributes: purpose, behavioral detail, a critical constraint, and a usage recommendation. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, making it easy to scan.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool does, how it behaves, and when to use it, and it notes that the reply is returned synchronously. It lacks explicit return structure details, but the description's overall clarity compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It gives a concrete example for 'hat' ('hat2') and implies that council_id identifies the council and message is the follow-up prompt. However, it does not explicitly define the expected format or constraints for council_id and message, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the action ('Cross-examine'), the target resource ('ONE seat by its blind hat label'), and the context ('within a council'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing it targets a single seat, and the phrase 'Never reveals the model' adds a unique distinguishing constraint.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use to probe disagreements before you synthesize.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the emphasis on 'ONE seat' implies a contrast with broader polling tools.

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