consult_openrouter

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states basic behavior (processes prompt, returns formatted response). It does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is destructive.

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 concise with a brief intro followed by a clear bullet list of parameters. The first two sentences are somewhat redundant ('Processes prompt and returns formatted response' repeats the intro), but overall efficient.

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?

The description covers basic usage and parameters, but lacks context on when to use this vs. siblings, and does not address potential errors or API limitations. An output schema exists but the return description is vague.

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 adds significant meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining 'directory' is for context only, format options ('text', 'json', 'code'), and a recommended timeout range. Schema coverage was 0%.

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 'Consult OpenRouter API in non-interactive mode with structured output' and lists supported formats, but does not differentiate from sibling tools 'consult_openrouter_batch' and 'consult_openrouter_with_stdin'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'non-interactive mode' but does not specify when not to use it or provide comparisons to siblings.

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