chimera_quantum_vote

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

The description reveals the core behavior (confidence-weighted consensus) and outputs, but does not explain edge cases (e.g., ties, invalid confidence values, empty responses) or the role of the timeout parameter. With no annotations, more detail is needed for full transparency.

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 short sentences that front-load the core function and outputs. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a tool with nested objects and a timeout parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the high-level purpose and outputs but omits details on response format, parameter behavior, and error handling, leaving gaps for an agent to operate correctly.

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 does not add meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. It fails to explain the nested object structure (answer, confidence, latency_ms) or the timeout parameter. Given 0% schema description coverage, the tool description should compensate but does not.

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 purpose: a confidence-weighted consensus vote across agent responses. It explicitly mentions the key outputs: winner, confidence, and contradiction count, making the function specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chimera_score or chimera_deliberate. It lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is most appropriate.

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