comet_ask

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating it's a 'blocking' call and mentions use cases like handling 'login walls, dynamic content, filling forms,' which implies real-time interaction capabilities. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently adds context in the second. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying use cases without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (blocking call with browser interaction) and no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers key behavioral aspects like blocking nature and use cases, but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or performance constraints, which are important for a tool with real-time dependencies.

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 does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides for parameters like 'prompt' or 'context.' Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting without description enhancement.

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 specific action ('Send a prompt to Comet/Perplexity and wait for the complete response') and distinguishes this tool from its siblings by specifying it's 'blocking' and 'ideal for tasks requiring real browser interaction or deep research with agentic browsing.' This differentiates it from non-blocking or non-browser interaction tools in the sibling list.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool ('Ideal for tasks requiring real browser interaction... or deep research with agentic browsing'), which helps differentiate it from siblings like comet_screenshot or comet_tabs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, such as when non-blocking calls might be preferred.

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