analyze

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool's multi-step internal behavior (routes, loads, searches, provides structured analysis) and important context like mandatory tension and demo/full mode differences. This goes beyond the bare 'analyze' name and gives a good sense of what the tool does internally, though it stops short of stating side effects or return structure explicitly.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'Run a Boardroom consultation.' The first sentence efficiently lists the core actions, and the second adds relevant mode distinctions. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler.

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 has one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the internal process and demo/full protocol modes, giving sufficient context for an agent to invoke it. However, it does not describe the return value structure beyond 'structured analysis,' which is a minor gap for such a high-level consultation 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%: the only parameter 'task' is described as 'The decision, question, or task to analyze.' The description's mention of 'your question' adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Run a Boardroom consultation' and enumerates the specific steps (routing questions, loading philosophies, searching precedents, structured analysis). This is a specific verb+resource with enough detail to distinguish it from sibling tools like check_governance or query_intelligence.

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 implies usage for decisions/questions and describes the internal routing process, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The phrase 'your question' suggests the intended input, but no clear 'use this when' guidance is offered.

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