consult

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It mentions advisor types but omits whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, has rate limits, or what side effects exist. No information about session context or constraints is provided.

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, consisting of one sentence and a list of advisor types. It avoids fluff but could benefit from a structured breakdown of key parameters.

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 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain how to structure questions, what constraints modify, or what session_context does, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 should compensate. It only explains 'advisor_type' by listing possible values. Other parameters (mode, question, constraints, session_context) are not described, leaving their semantics to the agent's inference.

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 consults Athena for expert engineering advice, with a specific list of advisor types (architecture, security, debugging, planning, review, optimization, documentation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_index, athena_remember, athena_status, and get_consultation_history, which serve different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or situations to avoid. It only hints at advisor types but lacks explicit usage context.

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