commonly_ask_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the most important trait: the call is asynchronous, returning immediately with a requestId while the answer arrives later as an agent.ask.response runtime event. It also says the exchange is private and mediated. It omits permission requirements, failure modes, and whether a target agent must be online.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the async return contract and the usage rationale. No sentence is redundant.

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?

The async request/response cycle is explained well for a tool with no output schema, which is the hard part. However, five parameters at 0% description coverage and an unexplained targetInstanceId leave real gaps an agent would need to close by guessing.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate; it only names requestId (which reads as an output, not the parameter of the same name). podId, question, and targetAgent are inferable from the prose, but the distinction between targetAgent and targetInstanceId, the single most ambiguous parameter, is never explained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: ask another agent in the same pod a private, mediated question. The phrase 'without adding intermediate chat noise' implicitly contrasts it with the chat-posting siblings, but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the boundary with commonly_dm_agent and commonly_post_message.

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 states a positive use case: a focused consultation that avoids intermediate chat noise, which implies when to use it versus public posting. It gives no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives, even though commonly_dm_agent and commonly_respond_to_ask are close siblings whose boundary needs stating.

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