consult_architect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says it 'directly queries' an external AI model, but does not describe the return format, whether the call is synchronous, potential costs, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. An agent calling this tool would have no idea what to expect in the response.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately names the action and the target. It is concise and to the point, with no filler. It could be considered slightly terse but is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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 that the tool queries an AI model and has no output schema or annotations, the description should clarify what the agent can expect back (e.g., text, structured steps, reasoning). It also fails to connect the tool to its siblings, leaving the agent in the dark about when this is the appropriate consultation route. These gaps make the description incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters (model, effort, prompt, context) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it neither improves nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 verb 'queries' and the resource 'The Architect (OpenAI gpt-5.6-sol)', and enumerates the kind of output it provides (system decomposition, modular design, API interfaces, structured implementation steps). This is specific and distinguishes it from generic query tools, but it does not reference any sibling tools, so an agent cannot tell how this differs from consult_contrarian or deliberate_council without additional context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description only states what it does, not under what circumstances it should be chosen over consult_contrarian, deliberate_council, offload_task, or fast_context_reader. An agent is left to guess which consultation tool fits a given request.

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