consult_openrouter_with_stdin

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the input combination and output formatting but does not mention side effects, potential errors, or constraints like rate limits. The basic structure is clear, but deeper behavioral details are absent.

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, front-loading the core purpose and analogy, followed by a well-structured parameter list. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers all inputs and mentions the output format. However, it omits details about error handling, timeout behavior, and the exact structure of the returned response. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for such details, but slight gaps remain.

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 compensates for the 0% schema coverage by providing clear, actionable explanations for all five parameters, including examples for stdin_content, allowed values for format, and a recommended range for timeout. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Consult OpenRouter with stdin content piped to prompt.' It provides a concrete analogy ('echo ... | open-bridge') and specifies the use case for CI/CD workflows. This differentiates it from sibling tools like consult_openrouter and consult_openrouter_batch, which likely handle standard queries or batched inputs.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as suitable for CI/CD workflows involving piping file contents, but it does not provide guidance on when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, limiting decision-making for the agent.

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