convene_panel

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the adversarial panel mechanism, skeptic presence and its effect on vote weight, fire-and-forget behavior, and that aggregates recompute per vote. This provides rich behavioral context that annotations (all false) do not convey.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. It uses backticks for parameters and explains behavior succinctly. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient for the information conveyed.

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 spawns an adversarial panel and has an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, parameter meanings, behavioral details (skeptic, fire-and-forget), and post-invocation steps (check pending_distillates/dialectic brief). It is complete for an orchestration trigger.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It explains target_kind ('distill' or 'claim'), target_id (Dxxx/UCxxx), and that size/roles override config defaults. However, it lacks specifics on allowed role formats and the meaning of size default 0.

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 it spawns a panel to vote on a distillate or claim, filling a promotion quorum. It specifies the target types and IDs, and distinguishes from direct voting tools like vote_distill and dialectic_evidence by emphasizing it is a higher-level orchestration.

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 explains when to use the tool (to fill promotion quorum) and provides context on adversarial behavior and fire-and-forget nature. It does not explicitly state alternatives, but indirectly distinguishes from direct voting tools. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context is clear.

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