agy_council_round

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: separate attempt budgets, no retries or loops, use of original material only, disallowing leading focus, sealed replies, a pre-call snapshot for later batches, possible cost, and that CLI tools are not forcibly disabled. These details substantially help an agent understand execution constraints and side effects.

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 main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the description is compact. However, it is telegraphic and fragmented, with several clauses whose meaning is unclear without domain context, making it harder to parse than necessary.

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 complex, open-world tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description provides useful behavioral context but leaves key gaps. It does not clarify parameter roles, expected return behavior, or how discussion_id drives the round, so an agent still lacks enough detail to invoke it confidently.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies that participants are selected and mentions focus in behavioral terms, but it does not explain discussion_id, reply_to, or the exact role of focus or participants.

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 states a concrete action: calling up to two selected remote participants via stored channels, with defaults and exclusions for client gpt. However, the phrase 'council round' is not explained, and the description does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like agy_discussion_turn or agy_run beyond a few channel-specific details.

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?

It gives some context such as 'No call is made for client gpt' and 'Codex CLI may be selected independently', but it never states when an agent should use this tool versus alternatives. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling council or discussion tools.

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