comet_ask

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

No annotations provided; description mentions 'blocking' and 'wait for complete response' which indicates synchronous behavior. However, it does not disclose potential issues like rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects on sessions.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant information, front-loaded with the core action and use cases.

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?

No output schema, yet description does not hint at the response format. With siblings like comet_poll and comet_screenshot, some mention of integration or alternatives 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage; the description adds little beyond the schema, with only a vague recommendation to 'focus on goals and context.' It does not clarify parameter interactions or constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Send a prompt and wait for complete response'), identifies the resource ('Comet/Perplexity'), and specifies blocking behavior, which distinguishes it from non-blocking siblings like comet_poll.

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?

Description explicitly advises when to use this tool: 'tasks requiring real browser interaction (login walls, dynamic content, filling forms) or deep research with agentic browsing.' It provides clear context but could explicitly mention cases where it is not suitable.

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