ask_monnet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: privacy ('private message') and synchronous response ('returned directly'). However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, or any potential side effects, which leaves some ambiguity for a tool lacking annotation support.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and supplemented by important privacy/delivery details. No redundant or tangential information.

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 tool with only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the motion scope, privacy, and that the response is returned directly. A minor gap is the lack of detail about the response format, but this is acceptable for a straightforward Q&A 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by implying the 'question' parameter is private and the 'motion_short_id' ties to a specific motion, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 function: 'Ask Monnet a question in the context of a specific motion.' It uses a specific verb ('Ask') and resource ('Monnet') and notes the motion context, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'comment' (public) and 'get_motion' (retrieval).

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when asking Monnet a question about a specific motion, and it notes that the message is private ('only you and Monnet see it'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to differentiate from public commenting.

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