ask_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses LLM provider fallback chain (Groq then Mistral), API key requirements, graceful degradation without keys, grounding in retrieved chunks with file:line sources, and guarantees no outright failure. This is exceptionally transparent.

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?

Though lengthy, the description is information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence packs several critical behavioral details efficiently. Slightly more compact writing might be possible, but the content justifies the length.

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 complexity (LLM synthesis, API keys, fallback, grounding), the description covers the essential behavior well. An output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable. Minor gaps like parameter details are addressed under parameter semantics, so overall completeness is high but not perfect.

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 explain the parameters. It implicitly covers 'question' via the purpose, but says nothing about 'top_k' or 'path_prefix'. The retrieval similarity to search_notes does not substitute for explaining these parameters.

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 verb ('Ask a question') and resource ('indexed files'), and explicitly contrasts with search_notes by adding LLM synthesis. It is clear what the tool does and how it differs from its closest sibling.

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?

It notes the same retrieval as search_notes and explains the synthesized vs. raw output difference, implying when to choose this over search_notes. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need a synthesized answer' or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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