chatgpt_webui_ask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the auth mechanism (session token) and the synchronous return of assistant text, but says nothing about side effects like conversation creation, quota consumption, long deep-research waits, timeout behavior, or error cases. For a tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and output. It is concise and readable, though for a tool of this complexity it is arguably too terse to earn a 5.

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 no annotations, the description alone must explain return values, behavior, and usage context beyond the schema. It only states the basic action and return type, missing details about synchronous vs. async behavior, session requirements, wait_timeout implications, and what the assistant text actually looks like. This is inadequate for an 11-parameter 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 schema already documents every parameter. The description adds minimal parameter meaning—it only echoes the 'prompt' concept and the auth context. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 a specific action—sending a prompt to ChatGPT WebUI—and its output (assistant text). It also mentions the authentication mechanism, which helps anchor the tool's role. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like chatgpt_webui_ask_async_start or chatgpt_webui_prompt, relying mostly on the word 'return' to imply synchronous behavior.

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 given about when to use this tool versus the async variants (chatgpt_webui_ask_async_start/status/result) or when a session must be established first. The description implies a one-shot synchronous ask, but does not state prerequisites, suitability for long-running operations, or alternatives.

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