consult_parallel

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: parallel execution, wall time equals max per-agent latency, and no deduplication of duplicates. This gives the agent important understanding of the tool's behavior, though it omits details like authentication or error handling.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. Use cases are presented as a bullet list, making them scannable. Every sentence adds value, though adding parameter explanations would improve structure without sacrificing brevity.

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 the complexity of parallel CLI agents and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description partially compensates by explaining use cases and wall time behavior. However, it lacks parameter details, error handling, and return value description, leaving gaps for a fully informed agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description text does not elaborate on any of the four parameters (agents, prompt, persona, timeout_seconds). The description focuses on use cases and behavior, leaving the agent to infer parameter meanings from names alone. This is insufficient.

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 'fan-outs the same prompt to multiple CLI agents in parallel', with explicit use cases (cross-validate, variant generation, diverse perspectives). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'consult' (single agent) and 'council' by emphasizing parallelism and independent duplicate execution.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: for cross-validation, variant generation, and collecting diverse perspectives. It also notes that duplicates run independently. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative tools, though the context is sufficient for an informed choice.

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