Duck Council

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the panel discussion analogy but no additional behavioral traits beyond that. It does not disclose any side effects or expectations.

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 sentence (9 words) that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no waste.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at the return format (e.g., combined responses, ordering) but does not. It also fails to explicitly state that all ducks respond simultaneously or how the responses are presented. Gaps exist for a multi-duck tool.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—no mention of prompt format, model purpose, or image usage.

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 'Get responses from all configured ducks', specifying both the verb and the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ask_duck' (single duck) and 'duck_debate' (back-and-forth) by emphasizing a collective panel discussion.

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 'panel discussion' analogy implies usage for collective opinions, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not list alternatives or prerequisites.

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