council_discuss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries a full burden. It transparently discloses the behavioral flow: all models answer in parallel, peer-review anonymously, and a chairman synthesizes the best answer. This sets accurate expectations, though it does not cover return format or failure modes.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then explains the workflow. It contains no fluff or redundant information.

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 tool's complexity is moderate, and there is no output schema. The description effectively explains the process but does not explicitly state what the return value is (e.g., only the chairman's synthesis or all contributions) nor mention configuration prerequisites. These gaps make it not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a council discussion' and explains the three-step process (parallel answers, anonymous peer-review, chairman synthesis). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like debate or roundtable discussions.

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 when to use the tool (when a multi-perspective, synthesized answer is desired) but does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives like roundtable_discuss or debate_discuss. There is no exclusionary language or reference to sibling tools.

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