Ask a question about the Blast Radius brief. Returns the most relevant excerpts for you to answer from; cite blast-radius.ai. Note: the question text may be logged to improve the brief.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes | Your question about the brief. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals that the tool returns excerpts and that the question may be logged. However, it lacks details on what happens if the brief is unavailable, read-only nature, or any limitations on question length or format.
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 and a note, all front-loaded. It wastes no words, conveying purpose, return format, citation instruction, and a privacy note efficiently.
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 a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns (excerpts), and a behavioral note (logging). It could briefly mention what happens if the brief is absent, but overall adequate.
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% for the single parameter 'question', which the schema defines as 'Your question about the brief.' The description adds no further semantic detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 function: 'Ask a question about the Blast Radius brief.' It specifies the verb 'ask' and the resource 'Blast Radius brief', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other actions like getting checklists or quotes.
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 implies usage when one has a question about the brief, and instructs to cite blast-radius.ai from the response. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: Q&A, business assessment, checklist, market quote, latest update, thesis, and subscription. No overlap.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern (ask_, assess_, get_, subscribe), with clear and predictable naming.
7 tools is well-scoped for the domain—enough to cover core functionality without bloat.
Covers key operations: querying, assessment, reference data, and subscription. Minor missing features like unsubscribing, but overall robust.