ask_woody

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 mentions returning expert answers with citations and handling legal disclaimers, but lacks details on latency, synchronous behavior, or any limitations. Basic behavior is clear but deeper transparency is missing.

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 well-structured: a single-purpose opening sentence, a bullet list of covered topics, and a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers parameters and return behavior (legal disclaimer handling). It could mention more about the output format, but the provided guidance is sufficient for agent 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 coverage is 0%, yet the description thoroughly explains all three parameters: question (max 2000 chars), state (US state for jurisdiction), and user_tier (values 'free', 'operator', 'patriot', 'armorer' affecting depth and model). This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 function: 'Ask Woody any firearms question and get an expert answer with citations.' It distinguishes itself from siblings (check_woody_status and search_knowledge_base) by focusing on expert Q&A.

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 lists covered topics (builds, legal, etc.) implying appropriate use cases, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool. With siblings available, explicit guidance would be helpful.

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