ask_analyst

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

The description provides several behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: cost range (5–45 tokens), synchronous nature with ~120s timeout, no caching, and that each call is charged. It also describes the output structure. No contradiction with annotations. Could further disclose error handling or rate limits.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence provides important behavioral and output detail. It is efficient without extraneous information, earning a '4' for being well-structured but not maximally tight.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description explains the return value structure (summary, findings, assessment, citations) and mentions cost tracking in meta.tokens. It covers cost, timing, and caching behavior. Missing details on error cases or timeout handling, but sufficient for typical use.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on overall behavior. Baseline of 3 applies as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 function: 'Ask the Delta Analyst an OSINT/GEOINT question.' It specifies the action (ask), resource (Delta Analyst), domain (OSINT/GEOINT), and output (structured brief). This distinguishes it from siblings like query_signals or assess_signal, which are more specific or different in nature.

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 usage for analytic questions but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks when-not-to-use conditions or comparisons to siblings such as assess_signal or query_hotspots. Usage context is assumed rather than instructed.

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