coeus_wildcard

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output structure (three options synthesized into one) but does not explain how modes, provider, models, or reasoning settings affect behavior, nor what kind of response format or side effects to expect.

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 sentence with no wasted words and communicates the core action immediately. It loses a point only because 'strongman' is unclear and the extreme brevity leaves important context unexplored.

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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent. It does not explain how modes like practical/chaotic/moonshot affect the generation, how provider/model routing works, or what the final synthesized output looks like.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though each parameter description is terse ('Mode', 'Models', 'Context'). The main description adds little parameter meaning, only implying that the 'problem' parameter supplies the input for generation.

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 names a specific verb and deliverable: 'Generate three strange solution options and synthesize one strongman idea.' This clearly conveys an unconventional brainstorming behavior. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from creative siblings like coeus_thinkdeep or coeus_critical_debate, and 'strongman' is ambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no intended context beyond the inherent implication of generating strange ideas. With many sibling tools, an agent receives no help choosing this one over coeus_second_opinion or coeus_thinkdeep.

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