ask_claude

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the need for a relay server and browser bridge but does not describe side effects, safety, or what happens if prerequisites are not met. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes only necessary prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant or wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, cost, and setup requirements. Minor missing details like response format or limitations are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful extra context for the 'model' or 'prompt' parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It merely restates 'the full prompt', which is already in the schema description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool asks Claude to write code, answer questions, or solve problems, and notes it is free with no API key required. The verb 'Ask' and resource 'Claude via Puter.js' are specific, and the description distinguishes the tool from paid alternatives by highlighting the cost benefit.

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?

Description implicitly tells when to use (when a free Claude interaction is desired) and lists prerequisites (relay server running, browser bridge open). However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but given no siblings, this is acceptable.

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