conclave_full

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by explaining the multi-stage process ('collects opinions, peer rankings, then has a Chairman model synthesize'), the override behavior with custom conclaves, and what the tool returns. It doesn't mention rate limits, auth needs, or error conditions, but provides substantial behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose first. The Args and Returns sections are well-structured. Some sentences could be slightly more concise, but overall it's efficient with zero wasted text.

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 complexity (multi-stage synthesis with overrides), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides complete context. It explains the process, parameter semantics, conditional behavior, and return values. The output schema exists, so the description appropriately doesn't need to detail return structure.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 4 parameters in detail: what 'question' is for, the meaning of 'tier' values, what 'chairman' overrides, and the purpose of 'chairman_preset' options. It also clarifies conditional behavior ('Ignored if custom conclave is active') that isn't in 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's purpose with specific verbs ('Run the full conclave with synthesis') and resources ('all 3 stages'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it's the 'most comprehensive' option that includes synthesis. It explicitly mentions what makes it different from other conclave tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Most comprehensive') and when parameters are ignored ('Ignored if custom conclave is active'). It also implies alternatives through sibling tool names like conclave_quick and conclave_ranked, giving clear context for selection.

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