athena_collective_quorum

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

The description reveals algorithmic behavioral traits (cross-inhibition, contradiction blocking, risk-dependent threshold, required winning margin) but says nothing about side effects, permissions, or return values. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and fails to clarify whether the tool mutates state or is read-only.

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?

A single dense sentence efficiently packs the core functionality and key constraints. It front-loads the verb 'Run' and then lists behavioral specifics without unnecessary filler. The jargon-heavy phrasing makes it less accessible, but the structure is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not explain the return value or side effects. Given the complexity of the quorum selection algorithm, an agent would be unsure what to expect after invocation. More context is needed on the result format and any prerequisites.

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?

The description references concepts like 'cross-inhibition,' 'contradiction blocking,' and 'risk-dependent threshold' that map to schema properties (inhibition, contradiction, risk, etc.), but it does not explicitly name parameters or explain their exact formats. With 0% schema description coverage, this partial semantic mapping helps but does not fully compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies the action ('Run') and the specific resource ('evidence-sensitive quorum selection'), with distinctive algorithmic constraints such as 'cross-inhibition' and 'contradiction blocking'. It stands apart from sibling collective_* tools by focusing on quorum selection with consensus rejection. However, the heavy jargon may reduce clarity for agents without domain knowledge.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'consensus alone cannot commit' implies a context, but it never mentions sibling tools, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and description, which is insufficient.

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