ask_relationship_expertAsk couples therapist Figs O'Sullivan for a warm, source-grounded answer about love, conflict, trust, attachment, intimacy, or repair.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes | Your relationship question |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about tone ('warm') and sourcing ('source-grounded'), but it does not describe the answer format, citation behavior, or any limitations. This is meaningful but not extensive additional disclosure.
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?
One compact, front-loaded sentence states the action, the expert, the answer quality, and the topic domains. Every element earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.
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 read-only Q&A tool with one parameter and existing annotations, the description is largely sufficient: the agent knows what to ask, who is being asked, and what kind of answer to expect. A minor gap is the absence of explicit details about the output structure or how sources are presented, but that does not critically impede correct invocation.
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%, and the single 'question' parameter is adequately described in the schema. The tool description adds topic context but does not add new parameter-level semantics such as format requirements or constraints, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Ask') plus a named resource ('couples therapist Figs O'Sullivan') and clearly defines the topical scope: love, conflict, trust, attachment, intimacy, or repair. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_couples_therapist or get_relationship_assessment.
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 intended use is implied by the question-and-answer framing and the topic list, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of a sibling like get_relationship_assessment or repair_right_now, nor does it give exclusion criteria.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: general Q&A, finding a therapist, taking an assessment, naming conflict patterns, providing immediate repair steps, and offering wisdom score insights. There is no overlap in functionality, so an agent can select the right tool without ambiguity.
All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (ask_, find_, get_, name_, repair_, wisdom_score_preview). The verbs are varied but each clearly indicates the action, and the pattern is uniform across the set.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a relationship expert domain. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of relationship guidance without excess or redundancy, making the count appropriate for both usability and maintainability.
The tool surface covers core relationship needs: general advice, therapist matching, assessment, conflict analysis, immediate repair, and personalized insight. The only minor gap is the lack of a tool for scheduling sessions or accessing broader educational resources, but the existing set addresses the primary lifecycle without significant dead ends.