chimera_gate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It states the output but omits details about side effects, authentication, rate limits, or behavior when the threshold is not met. This partial disclosure is insufficient for a tool that processes multiple inputs.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose, list strategies, and mention output. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text.

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 3-parameter schema and absence of output schema, the description partially explains the return (winner and divergence score) but does not specify types or behavior when consensus fails. Some edge cases and details are missing.

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 schema covers 67% of parameters (candidates and threshold). The description adds value by listing all three strategies explicitly, which is not in the schema (only enum values). It also clarifies the output, aiding understanding of parameter purpose.

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 tool's function: collapsing multiple candidates into a consensus result. It specifies the available strategies (majority, weighted_vote, highest_confidence) and the output (winner and divergence score). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists strategies but lacks when-not or usage context, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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