ask_perplexity

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses supported file types (text/code) and explicitly states images/PDFs are not supported due to no vision API. This adds value beyond the schema. However, it omits details on output format or error handling, which would be helpful.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. First sentence defines purpose, second clarifies file constraints, third provides use-case guidance. Front-loaded with essential 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?

Though schema coverage is 100% and usage guidelines are present, the description fails to mention the output format (e.g., answer with citations) or any error behavior. More critically, the file type contradiction makes the description incomplete and potentially confusing for an agent.

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%, but the tool description contradicts the schema for the 'file' parameter: schema lists images and PDFs as supported, while description says they cannot be attached. This inconsistency harms reliability and clarity, making the parameter semantics misleading.

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 purpose: sending a research question to Perplexity for a web-grounded answer with citations. It distinguishes from siblings (ask_claude, ask_codex) by specifying use for current information and live web search.

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 explicitly recommends use for current information, documentation lookups, and questions benefiting from live web search. While it doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to choose appropriately.

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