consult_peer

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses non-blocking behavior, returns task_id, supports iterative rounds, no timeout, and progress via get_task_result. The verdict types (AGREE, SUGGEST_CHANGES, DISAGREE) are specified.

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?

Every sentence adds unique information. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then behavioral details. No wasted words; efficient and 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?

Despite no output schema, description covers return values (task_id and verdict) and explains how to retrieve results (get_task_result). Also mentions progress visibility, making it complete for this 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%, but description adds context beyond definitions: explains 'context' as project context, 'proposal' as technical proposal, and introduces 'previous_rounds' for iterative use. Adds value without redundancy.

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 defines the tool as 'Antigravity-backed peer consultation for architectural/technical consensus' and specifies its use in the PLANNING phase for validating proposals. It distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with 'delegate_task_readonly'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (PLANNING phase) and provides a clear alternative: 'prefer delegate_task_readonly with resource_group: "review"' for Codex orchestration. This gives direct guidance on tool selection.

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