claude_ask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states 'Returns AI-generated response', which is obvious. It omits critical traits: whether the call is read-only, if it has side effects, requires prior context, or has rate limits.

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?

Two concise sentences convey purpose and output. No filler or repetition; every word earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and siblings that specialize (e.g., claude_explain, claude_review), the description lacks enough detail to help an agent select it confidently. It does not describe return format, question scope boundaries, or how to leverage the optional project parameter.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning (e.g., how to format the question, what 'project' does for context). Baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'Ask' and resource 'Claude Code', specifying the domain as 'code, architecture, or development'. It implies a general Q&A role among sibling tools like claude_review and claude_explain, but does not explicitly differentiate them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., claude_explain for explanations, claude_review for review). The description does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it.

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