ask_human

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavior: it waits for a reply, uses a default target unless overridden, and explicitly states 'Nothing is persisted.' It does not cover error or timeout behavior, but the core side-effect profile 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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, target selection behavior, and persistence guarantee. The main action is front-loaded with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the essential invocation facts: what it does, how the target is chosen, and that nothing is persisted. However, since there is no output schema, it does not state what the tool returns after receiving a reply or how failures are surfaced, which is a minor gap in an otherwise complete description.

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 question, target override, and timeoutMs. The description reinforces the default-vs-override distinction but adds little beyond what the structured schema provides, meriting the baseline score.

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 verb and resource: 'Send a question to the human... and wait for a reply.' This outcome-oriented phrasing distinguishes it from the sibling notify_human, which likely implies one-way notification without a response.

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 implies this tool should be used when a human reply is needed, but it never explicitly names notify_human as the alternative or states a 'when not to use' condition. The default-target vs override guidance is useful, but usage context remains implied rather than explicit.

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