Ask the project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that answers are grounded in database code searches and active rules—but omits the nondeterministic LLM nature, latency, or what an answer looks like. An output schema exists, so return format is not required here.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the core action; no filler sentences. The awkward mid-sentence line break is cosmetic but costs nothing in meaning.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema covers return values, so the main omissions are the two undocumented parameters and the lack of routing guidance against sibling search tools. Adequate but with clear gaps for a question-answering 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never explains the required 'query' parameter's expected form or what 'repo_path' does (scope limiting? defaults to current repo?). The word 'question' loosely maps to 'query' but both parameters are effectively undocumented.

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 specific verb (asks) and clearly names the resource (the project LLM assistant) and its grounding sources (database code searches and active rules). This distinguishes it conceptually from raw-search siblings like search_code, but it never explicitly contrasts them, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'about the project code' implies the context for use, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no statement about when to prefer search_code/find_related_files instead, and no prerequisites mentioned. Usage is only inferable.

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