convene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains that the tool creates a mediated session, that members respond and the chair manages order, and it lists the supported decision types. It also returns a status indicating the session is 'awaiting' input. This is good behavioral context, though it could mention potential side effects (e.g., asynchronous nature or state changes) but which are implied by 'session' and 'awaiting'.

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 well-structured with an opening summary, followed by a concise list of arguments and returns. It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool. It front-loads the core action and decision types. A slight deduction for redundancy: the first two sentences overlap somewhat ('Assemble committee' vs 'Creates a mediated committee session').

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 params, 3 required, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, decision types, parameters, and return fields. It lacks explicit examples of usage or edge cases, but the output schema handles return structure. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could be more explicit about when to choose this over debate tools.

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. It provides a clear list of all 8 parameters with brief explanations in the Args block, including defaults and examples for members. It adds meaning beyond the schema (e.g., what 'members' are, what 'decision_type' options are). It covers most parameters adequately, but some (like context) are only glossed over.

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 that the tool assembles a committee for group decision-making, with a specific verb ('assemble') and resource ('committee'). It also lists supported decision types, which helps distinguish it from siblings like init_debate that likely start a different deliberation format. However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings, so it misses the differentiation point for a 5.

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 when a committee-style decision is needed, and the mention of decision types (go_nogo, vote, review) gives context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative siblings like init_debate or consult. The absence of exclusions drops it from a 5.

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