seed_council

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a lot: it is a BACKGROUND JOB, it is long-running, it requires network access to Gutenberg, it returns {job_id} immediately, it must be polled via job_status, and it is idempotent for already-assembled data. Only failure/timeout behavior and what exactly gets created are left unstated.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the resource is named first, then the cold-start condition, then the async contract (job_id + poll), then idempotency. Every clause carries information, though the telegraphic jargon style ('PD-мудрецов') is slightly cryptic.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return behavior — and it does, stating that it immediately returns {job_id} and that job_status is the polling mechanism. Combined with the zero-parameter schema, an agent has what it needs to invoke and follow up 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no argument semantics to add beyond what the empty schema already conveys. The description does not need to explain any inputs.

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 specific verb and resource: assemble a starting council of PD sages (Aurelius + Epictetus) from scratch, cold start without a shell. That is concrete and distinguishable in intent from generic federation/scaffold siblings, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool to route away from.

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 implies when to use it ('холодный старт без шелла' — cold start, no shell) and tells the agent to poll job_status afterwards, plus notes idempotency for already-assembled state. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named sibling alternative (e.g., setup_full, scaffold_principis), so usage is only implied.

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