Ask a Duck

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds that this targets a specific provider ('duck'), but it doesn't disclose whether conversations are stateful, how errors are handled, or what the returned response looks like. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description is acceptable but minimal.

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, concise sentence that directly states the core function without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple querying tool.

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?

With no output schema and only a minimal description, the tool is incomplete for an agent. It doesn't mention the return format, whether conversation context is maintained, or how it differs from chat_with_duck. The schema and annotations are rich, but the description should clarify these behavioral aspects to be fully contextual.

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%, with every parameter (model, images, prompt, provider, temperature) having a clear description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that the provider is specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 'a specific LLM provider (duck)', which is precise about the action. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like chat_with_duck or duck_council, which could also involve asking questions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as chat_with_duck or compare_ducks. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases beyond a generic 'ask a question'.

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