ask_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: not whether this invokes an external process, whether it is read-only, latency/cost, or how errors surface. The only added context is the configuration source (BRIDGE_AGENTS_JSON), which is minor.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy — there is nothing else to trim because nothing useful was said.

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?

Five parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema leaves the description wholly insufficient. Nothing tells the agent what a valid agent_id is, what the call returns, or how it differs from the sibling ask tools.

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% for all 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not — agent_id, prompt, model, tool_policy, and reasoning_effort are entirely undocumented. An agent cannot know what values tool_policy or reasoning_effort accept.

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 verb 'Ask' plus resource 'a configured agent profile' identifies the operation, and the reference to BRIDGE_AGENTS_JSON hints at where agents are configured. However, it gives no differentiation from close siblings ask_antigravity and ask_codex, which appear to do the same thing against different backends.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus ask_antigravity, ask_codex, or get_agent_info, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must guess which 'ask' tool applies.

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