collaborate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers very little. It does not say whether the call blocks until consensus (potentially long-running given up to 10 rounds), whether it can fail to reach consensus, whether it consumes tokens/cost, or what the consensus output looks like. 'Reach consensus' is asserted without any mechanism or failure-mode detail.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it leaves the operational picture incomplete; still, nothing in it is wasted.

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?

For an orchestration tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should at minimum indicate the shape of the result (consensus text, transcript, per-agent output) and whether the call is synchronous, since no structured field communicates any of that.

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% – topic, agents (with pattern), and rounds (with range and default) are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, so the baseline 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 names a specific capability: multi-agent discussion of a topic toward consensus across multiple rounds. That is more than a restated name and an agent can form a mental model of the operation. It does not, however, contrast itself with workflow siblings like full_workflow or plan_feature, which also orchestrate multiple agents.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this tool versus the many workflow siblings (full_workflow, plan_feature, design_architecture). No prerequisites, no indication of whether it is a standalone discussion or a step inside a larger pipeline. The agent must guess.

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