lilbrain_ask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly exposes the non-obvious behavior that the tool does not perform a fixed analysis itself but auto-routes to an appropriate internal analysis tool. It does not mention output shape or ambiguous-question handling, but the core trait is 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?

Two short sentences earn their place: the first states the purpose, the second states the distinguishing behavior. There is no redundant filler, and key information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: domain (codebase), input language (natural language), and behavior (auto-routing). An example or return-format note would help, but nothing needed for a correct first call is missing.

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?

The input schema already documents the single required parameter with 100% coverage ('Question in plain English'). The description adds that the question should be about the codebase and that it will be auto-routed, which is useful but marginal. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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?

States a distinct verb ('Ask') and resource ('the codebase'), and characterizes the tool as a natural language interface that auto-routes to the right analysis tool. This clearly differentiates it from the many specific sibling tools, which are named analysis operations rather than a general entry point.

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?

Provides clear context for use: an agent with a natural language question about the codebase can use this tool without needing to know which specialized sibling to invoke. It does not explicitly list when to avoid it or name specific alternatives, but the auto-routing behavior covers the selection decision.

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