run_roundtable

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the parallel execution and automatic logging side-effect, but does not cover failure modes, required permissions, rate limits, or whether the tool modifies any state. The logging behavior is useful but partial.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded and the optional side-effect is stated clearly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values more clearly. While it states the output is a 'role-based council report', it does not specify format, structure, or how the agent can use it. The description is adequate but leaves ambiguity about the result, which is important for a tool that produces synthesized output.

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 both parameters (prompt and include_models) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning for either parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no extra semantic value is added.

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 executes a prompt across multiple expert models in parallel and synthesizes a role-based report, with an optional side-effect of logging to Obsidian. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like route_prompt (single model) or list_roundtable_models (listing only).

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 for parallel multi-model queries and mentions automatic logging, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus route_prompt or other alternatives. There are no exclusion criteria or prerequisites, though the context of sibling tools provides indirect guidance.

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