ask

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that the call waits for an answer, a useful blocking trait. It does not disclose permissions, side effects of notify/publish_ask, or return behavior, but with annotations the bar is lower.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and action list. The final clause defers to query actions, which is slightly wasteful but not verbose.

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 nested-params tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete: it omits actor semantics, action selection details, and what the wait returns. It gives enough to start but not enough to invoke confidently.

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 33% and action/params have no schema descriptions; the description partially compensates by naming actions and their params (title, body?, level?, about?; within, reason?). It leaves actor undocumented in the description and does not explain the nested params object or required fields.

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?

States 'Put a question to someone and wait for the answer' and names two actions, but the inclusion of notify and the deferral to query actions makes the core purpose ambiguous. An agent cannot fully tell what ask does versus query.

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?

Lists action names but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives among siblings. 'query actions says what each does' pushes discovery elsewhere.

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