brain_ask

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and non-read-only behavior. The description adds useful execution-path and auth context by stating it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope. It does not describe specific side effects, but given the annotations, this is an acceptable level of disclosure.

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 short, front-loaded with its purpose, and free of filler. The routing context and Args list are each necessary and readable, and nothing is repeated from the schema unnecessarily.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the invocation path, scope, and both parameters. However, it omits what the `ask` action actually accomplishes and when to use it versus related agents, leaving real ambiguity for an agent.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description partially compensates by explaining message as a free-text objective and inputs as an optional JSON string. That is more than the raw schema provides, but it gives no structure, keys, or examples for `inputs`, so it remains only minimally helpful.

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 resource ('the brain domain agent action `ask`') and a clear verb ('Run'), so the agent understands this invokes a brain-domain action. It is clear at the mechanics level, but it does not distinguish what `ask` achieves relative to sibling brain tools like brain_chat or dispatch_domain_agent.

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 guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, and no sibling tools or exclusions are mentioned. The routing/scope sentence gives context, but an agent cannot tell whether brain_ask, brain_chat, or a generic dispatcher is the right choice.

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