chimera_deliberate

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: default mode, thresholds (60% stance, 0.62 similarity), detection conditions, speed trade-offs, and that it provides a numeric divergence score. It lacks mention of side effects or authorization needs.

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 fairly dense with useful information front-loaded. Every sentence contributes value, though it could be slightly more streamlined without losing context.

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?

No output schema exists; the description mentions reporting consensus_detected and a divergence score but does not fully specify the response structure. For a 3-param tool, this is a notable gap, though the description provides enough for basic usage.

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 coverage is 33% (only mode described). The description adds meaning by explaining how prompt and perspectives are used in deliberation (stance detection, term alignment, overlap). Mode options are detailed beyond enum labels.

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 'Multi-perspective deliberation' and explains that it detects consensus across perspectives. It distinguishes two modes and contrasts with direct reasoning, making the tool's unique value evident among many chimera siblings.

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 guidance on when to use each mode (lexical_consensus for controlled vocabulary, semantic for general) and contrasts with direct reasoning. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or compare to specific sibling tools.

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