Riven Council

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the basic behavior (creation, multiple models, synthesized verdict) but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits beyond the stated flow.

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, no wasted words. First sentence defines the functionality, second provides usage guidance. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers purpose and usage guidelines adequately. No output schema is present, but the description mentions the output (synthesized verdict plus individual answers). The three parameters are fully described in the schema. Slightly lacking in behavioral transparency, but overall adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description does not add extra context beyond what the schema provides, resulting in baseline 3.

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 explicitly states 'Create a Riven Computer council task' and explains that it involves multiple models producing a synthesized verdict plus individual answers, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like riven_chat.

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 includes a clear usage guideline: 'Use when you want a cross-checked or debated answer rather than a single model's view.' It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficiently clear.

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