consult_supervisor

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

With no annotations, the description fully shoulders behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns a decision object with 'approve', 'block', or 'modify', along with a reason and optional suggestion. This transparency about the blocking nature and the interaction with an external agent is sufficient for a simple approval tool. No contradictions with missing annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, usage context, and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose and then immediate usage guidance.

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?

For a simple approval consultation tool, the description provides necessary context: when to use, what to expect in return. The schema covers parameters well. While it doesn't mention potential side effects or failure modes, the return format and purpose are clear. Slightly more detail on what happens if the supervisor is unavailable would improve completeness, but it's 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?

The input schema has 4 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema already provides detailed semantics for each parameter. The tool description adds no extra information about the parameters beyond what the schema offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: consulting a supervisor agent before specific actions (writing files, running commands, making decisions). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_supervisor_message' which is for retrieving messages, and 'notify_supervisor' for notifications, by focusing on approval. The verb 'consult' and resource 'supervisor agent' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'before writing files, running commands, or making architectural decisions.' It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the context makes it clear that this is the go-to for approval-seeking. The return format hints at the possible outcomes (approve/block/modify), which aids in decision-making.

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