ask_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses RAG, returns synthesized answers with citations, and requires a configured LLM engine. It could add details about potential latency or accuracy limitations, but the citation format and source list mention provide good transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence presents the main action and output format, second sentence offers usage guidance and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value with no 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 simple input schema (one parameter) and no output schema, the description explains output format (synthesized answer with citations and source list) and dependency (LLM engine). It could mention error handling or what happens if the engine is not configured, but overall it provides sufficient context for a straightforward tool.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'question', and the description adds 'The question to answer from the user's history.' which is similar to the schema description. Since baseline is 3 for high coverage, and no additional meaning is added, the score remains 3.

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 that the tool answers a question from the user's past sessions via RAG, retrieves relevant threads, and returns a synthesized answer with citations. It effectively distinguishes itself from reading many threads manually.

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 description provides explicit use cases ('how did we...' / 'what did I decide about...') and advises using this tool 'instead of reading many threads'. It also mentions a prerequisite (LLM engine with distillation enabled). However, it does not explicitly list alternative sibling tools for comparison.

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