coeus_second_opinion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only adds the vague qualifier 'rigorous'. It does not explain whether this invokes another model, how reasoning is controlled, what the output looks like, or whether any state changes occur.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though slightly underspecified for a tool with five parameters and no other explanatory material.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, overlapping siblings, and absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify expected input semantics, model selection behavior, reasoning modes, or what constitutes a useful second opinion response.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions, even though those descriptions are just the parameter names. The tool description adds no further meaning about how parameters like 'context', 'approach', and 'question' interact, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: providing a rigorous second opinion on an approach or technical decision. It is not a tautology and conveys a distinct purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as coeus_critical_debate, coeus_counterfactual_review, or coeus_multi_model_verify.

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 phrase 'second opinion' implies when to use the tool, and the required 'context' and 'approach' parameters reinforce that. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool would be preferable for related but different needs.

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