ask_council_async

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

The description discloses the in-memory nature and lifecycle ('Jobs are in-memory and do not survive a server reload'), which is critical behavioral context beyond the minimal annotations. It also clarifies the return behavior (job_id) and that it's non-blocking.

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?

Three sentences, with the primary action stated upfront. Each sentence adds distinct information: purpose, input compatibility, and fetch mechanism, plus a caveat. No redundant phrasing.

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 covers the full workflow: start background job, get job_id, poll result, and job lifetime. It references sibling tools for parameter details and result retrieval, which is sufficient given the schema and sibling context. Minor omission of error handling or timeout behavior, but not critical.

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 11 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It adds value by stating 'Same inputs as ask_council', which informs the agent that parameter behavior is consistent with a known sibling. No additional semantics are provided.

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 'Start a council run in the background and return a job_id immediately', identifying the specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from siblings by referencing ask_council for synchronous behavior and get_council_result for polling.

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 explains when to use it: 'so a long deconfliction/dialectic run (or a slow local model) does not block', providing a clear use case. It also instructs how to retrieve results: 'Poll get_council_result with the job_id'. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions, but the context is clear.

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