ask_council

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the processing differences between modes and mentions the deconfliction score range (0–100%) for the deconflicted mode. However, it does not detail side effects, permissions, or response format nuances.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose. The second sentence lists modes with brief explanations, which is efficient but slightly dense. It could be broken into a list for clarity, but overall it is concise and informative.

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 main functionality and modes, but does not describe the return format or structure of the 'structured response.' It also does not mention that the council must be configured beforehand (a prerequisite implied by sibling tools). For a complex tool, some additional details would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the meaning of each mode beyond the schema's enum labels. It clarifies what each mode does (individual answers, categorized grouping, deconflicted iterative loop with score). This helps the agent select the appropriate mode.

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: 'Send a question to the model council and get a structured response.' It lists three distinct modes, making it easy to understand what the tool does and distinguishing it from sibling tools like configure_council or get_council_config.

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 the three modes but does not explicitly guide when to use each mode or when to prefer this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., council must be configured) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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