ask_expert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says the tool 'asks' a specialist to review, without stating whether this launches an async request, returns a response, requires permissions, or has side effects.

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 a single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. However, it is so brief that important context is omitted.

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?

With four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks guidance on how to select role_id, when to use this tool versus run_team, and what the agent should expect as a result.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps 'specialist' to role_id and 'project' to project_path, but it does not explain provider, the meaning of task, or how role_id values are obtained.

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 states a specific action ('Ask one specialist') and a clear resource (a task and readable source files in a project). The phrase 'one specialist' weakly contrasts with run_team, but it does not fully clarify that role_id identifies the specialist, so it stops short of 5.

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 wording implies a single-specialist review, which hints at a distinction from run_team, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus list_experts or run_team. It also does not mention that list_experts should be used to find a valid role_id.

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