Query a workspace (RAG)

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait, and elaborates on how 'query' mode grounds answers in documents while 'chat' mode allows general knowledge. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and covers the main safety aspect.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core purpose, followed by a concise explanation of modes. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy.

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 read-only query tool with a well-documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, modes, and safety. It does not specify the return format (e.g., citations structure), but that is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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 100%, and the description adds no new parameter-level information beyond reinforcing the mode behavior already described in the schema. It does not clarify parameter formats or edge cases, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource 'workspace's embedded documents', and differentiates itself from sibling tools like list_documents and list_workspaces by focusing on natural-language questioning. The mention of modes (query/chat) further clarifies its scope.

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 explains the two modes and when each is appropriate (grounded vs general knowledge), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. Context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but lacks explicit alternatives.

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