convene_panel

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: fire-and-forget agents, direct DB voting, aggregate recomputation, and the impact of the skeptic on vote weight. It lacks details on permissions or error handling but is largely transparent.

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 well-structured with clear sections and uses backticks for code. It is concise but not too terse, effectively conveying necessary information without excess.

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 absence of annotations, the description covers essential behavioral aspects (adversarial panel, vote origin, post-vote checks). It does not detail the output schema but that is acceptable per guidelines. Minor gaps in prerequisites or error states.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning: target_kind as 'distill' or 'claim', target_id as Dxxx/UCxxx, size/roles as overrides. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though formats could be more precise.

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 spawns a panel of agents to vote on a distillate or claim, fulfilling a promotion quorum. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vote_distill by focusing on spawning a panel rather than performing a direct vote.

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?

Describes when to use (filling promotion quorum), how parameters work (target_kind, target_id, size, roles), and post-action checks (pending_distillates, dialectic brief). It also explains adversarial behavior and the skeptic's role, providing clear usage context.

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