Ask all three advisers with an exact prompt

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses real behavioral traits: the response echoes thread_key plus a SHA-256 hash, changing a resolved model or effort restarts only that provider's native session, and overrides are metadata that never enter the prompt. These are consequential, non-obvious side effects that structured fields do not convey.

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 core directive is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remainder is largely non-redundant operational guidance. It is dense and slightly long, but nearly every sentence carries an actionable constraint (thread lifecycle, override rules, session restart).

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description still notes the thread_key/hash echo. It covers thread lifecycle, defaults, and override semantics thoroughly; only the providers selection parameter lacks direct explanation, a minor omission.

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 semantics, and it largely does: prompt (exact, unmodified), thread_key (create a stable topic-based key on first call, reuse thereafter), and provider_overrides (with preset examples and the note that model/effort may be used). The 'providers' array and 'reset_thread' flag are only indirectly covered (via the named providers and the 'fresh/reset thread' phrasing), leaving a small gap.

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 precise verb and resource: it sends 'exactly the supplied prompt, unchanged' to three named providers independently, and the title reinforces the 'three advisers' framing. Nothing about its function is ambiguous, and it is trivially distinguishable from siblings like mastermind_reset_thread and mastermind_feedback.

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 explicit trigger phrases ('same prompt', 'exact prompt', 'exactly this') and a concrete negative directive ('Do not rewrite, summarize, prepend, append, or provider-specialize'). It also states when to pass provider_overrides ('Only when the user explicitly requests a different setting') versus relying on defaults, which is a clear use/not-use boundary.

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