invoke_council

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains role assignment based on psychology, adding useful context. However, it omits details about side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens with invalid token_ids, or the output format.

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 no redundancy. The key action and role assignment are front-loaded. Every sentence provides necessary information.

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 is fairly complete given the complexity and presence of an output schema (which relieves the need to describe return values). It covers the core mechanics (convening, role assignment). Minor missing aspects: what happens after debate, whether results are returned, or how to interpret output.

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?

The schema covers both parameters fully. The description adds value for token_ids by explaining fallback behavior when fewer than 3 IDs are provided. No additional meaning is added for topic, but overall it supplements the schema.

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 convenes 3 Undesirable agents to debate a topic using multi-agent resonance, with specific role assignment based on Big Five psychology. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like soul_speak or query_ollama.

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 when a debate or multi-perspective analysis is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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