agent_query

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

The description outlines the processing flow (intent→routing→multi-channel→fusion) and output structure (reply + structured basis). However, with no annotations, it lacks details on side effects, auth needs, or read-only guarantees, leaving moderate transparency.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the orchestration pipeline. While it could benefit from clearer structure (bullets), it is free of redundancy and front-loaded with key information.

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 tool's complexity and numerous siblings, the description lacks usage context, parameter details, and behavioral constraints. The existence of an output schema partially covers return values, but other completeness aspects are deficient.

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%, and the tool description offers no explanation of the 'query' or 'session_id' parameters—no format, constraints, or examples. This fails to add meaning beyond parameter names.

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 performs a comprehensive orchestrated query with intent routing, multi-channel fusion, returning a final reply and structured basis. This distinguishes it from simpler siblings like smart_query, though it could be more explicit about its unique role.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like decompose_query or smart_query. The description implies it's for complex queries needing orchestration, but no direct when-not or alternative references.

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