consensus_check

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

The description claims 'Read-only' but annotations have readOnlyHint: false, a contradiction. Also, advancement of checkpoint is mentioned but not fully disclosed. Annotation Contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded key actions. The second sentence includes future feature details (Phase C) that are slightly tangential but not overly verbose.

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?

Explains what the tool does and outputs to a file, but lacks detail on return behavior or success/failure indicators. With no output schema, more explanation would be beneficial.

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?

No parameters in schema, baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info since none exist.

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?

Clearly states verb (scan, surface, advance) and resource (decisions, conflicts, checkpoint). Distinguishes from sibling tools like check_conflict and consensus_propose_supersession by specifying it only surfaces conflicts without automatic resolution.

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?

Indicates read-only and no automatic resolution, which guides usage against alternative tools that might resolve conflicts. However, lacks explicit 'when to use' vs 'when not to use' comparison with siblings.

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