architect_panel

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds real context: it discloses that each persona returns its own questions, checks, deliverables and recommended workbench tools, and that the output is perspective rather than a verdict. That framing materially shapes how an agent should consume and present results. It stops short of describing cost, latency, or determinism for multi-persona invocation.

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?

One dense sentence with the action front-loaded and the payoff clause trailing; nothing is redundant. The parenthetical persona list is long but earns its place by defining the roles enum, though it slightly buries the 'Lens, not a verdict' qualifier at the end.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description covers what the panel produces. But for a 4-required-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the absence of any guidance on artifactType and knownFacts leaves a real gap an agent would have to guess through.

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% across 4 required parameters. The description explains the roles dimension by enumerating all ten personas, and 'on a subject' maps loosely to the subject param. However artifactType (an 8-value required enum) and knownFacts (the array that presumably grounds the panel) get no explanation at all, leaving half the required inputs semantically opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Convene architect personas ... on a subject') and enumerates the persona set, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It also signals the output shape (questions, checks, deliverables, tool calls) and the advisory framing ('Lens, not a verdict'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from related review siblings like well_architected_review or threat_model.

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?

Usage is implied by 'on a subject' and the 'lens, not a verdict' caveat, which tells the agent this is advisory rather than a decision tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many review-oriented siblings, so routing still requires inference.

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