ask_codebase

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's read-only nature ('explores the repo READ-ONLY'), exploration methods (Read/Grep/Glob), return format (synthesized answer with file:line references and cost footer), thread behavior (context caching for steering), model binding rules, effort variability, and the optional show_steps to reveal the exploration trail. This exceeds what is required for confident invocation.

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 well-structured, starting with the primary purpose followed by parameter details. It is efficient, with each sentence serving a clear purpose. However, it is somewhat lengthy; a touch more conciseness could be achieved without losing clarity.

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's complexity (5 parameters, turn-based steering, model binding, caching), the description covers all essential behavioral and contextual aspects: usage scenarios, parameter interactions, cost reporting, and output format. Since an output schema exists, omission of explicit return value details is acceptable. A minor gap is the lack of error condition description, but overall it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 explains all five parameters: the required 'question,' optional 'thread' for steering, 'model' with binding rules, 'effort' with allowed values (low, medium, high, xhigh, max), and 'show_steps' for transparency. Although defaults are not explicitly stated, the descriptions are clear and add significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 tool's core function: 'Ask a natural-language question about the local codebase, with turn-based steering.' It uses specific verbs ('ask,' 'steer') and a well-defined resource ('local codebase'), and distinguishes itself from siblings (bridge_cost, bridge_forget) by focusing on querying and analysis.

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 when to use a thread (for multi-turn steering) versus one-off queries, and how to vary effort within a thread. It also notes that switching models on an existing thread is refused, prompting the user to start a new thread. While it mentions bridge_cost for cost details, it does not explicitly exclude other alternatives, but the context is clear.

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