ask_user

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld); the description adds real context beyond that — a human-facing voice overlay, a sub-agent prohibition, and strict input brevity. It omits whether the call blocks until the user answers or times out, though the timeout parameter partially implies this.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then the audience restriction, then the format constraint. Every clause is actionable and nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never says what the agent receives back (the user's answer text, likely a structured response with the chosen option). For a tool whose entire value is the returned answer, that gap matters; the description also doesn't state that the call blocks until answered or times out.

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, detail, options, task_name, and timeout_s thoroughly. The description's 'plain text, one sentence, ~80 chars (100 max)' restates the schema's maxLength and description rather than adding new meaning — baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 names a specific verb and resource — ask the user a question — and adds the delivery mechanism (voice overlay), which an agent can't infer from the name alone. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'notify' (one-way vs. question-and-answer), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

It gives a hard, explicit exclusion: 'Sub-agents must NOT call this — return results to your parent agent.' That is genuinely actionable routing guidance. It never mentions the 'notify' sibling or when a plain notification is preferable to a blocking question, leaving one meaningful alternative unaddressed.

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