ask_stylus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'get concept explanations' and 'debug code issues,' implying it returns informative responses, but doesn't detail response format, potential limitations (e.g., accuracy, depth), rate limits, or authentication needs. For a Q&A tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic purpose.

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 and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and adding a supplementary note in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope and capabilities. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a tool with four parameters, though it could be slightly more detailed given the lack of annotations.

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 tool's complexity (Q&A with four parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and hints at usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, response format, and error handling. For a tool without structured output or safety annotations, more context on what to expect from the tool's operation would improve completeness.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that parameters like target_version enable 'version-specific guidance.' It doesn't provide additional context on parameter usage or interactions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 purpose: 'Ask questions about Stylus development, get concept explanations, or debug code issues.' It specifies the verb ('ask questions') and resource ('Stylus development'), and distinguishes from most siblings (e.g., generate_* tools, orchestrate_* tools) by focusing on Q&A rather than code generation or orchestration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other ask_* tools like ask_bridging or ask_orbit, which may have overlapping domains.

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 context through 'Supports version-specific guidance' and the input schema's parameters (e.g., question_type, target_version), suggesting it's for Stylus-related inquiries with optional specificity. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ask_bridging or ask_orbit, or when to prefer code-generation siblings for similar tasks. The guidance is present but not fully articulated.

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