tokonomix_single_ask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the passthrough nature, billing model, and the trade-off with consensus. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a simple call tool these are less critical. The description adds value beyond structured fields.

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 (two sentences plus a tip) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's role, usage, and trade-offs without redundancy.

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 description covers purpose, usage context, and return type. It does not detail error scenarios or authentication, but these are not typically required for a simple single-model call. The lack of an output schema is partially offset by the explicit mention of the plain answer return. Overall, complete enough for effective selection and invocation.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description focuses on tool usage rather than parameter details, which is acceptable since the schema handles that. No additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Single-model passthrough call', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling consensus tool by mentioning cost and use cases, and it states the return value (plain answer with markup billing).

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Cheaper than consensus — use for routine reasoning, tool-orchestration, classification.' It also names the alternative tool directly: 'use `tokonomix_consensus_ask` instead when correctness matters.' This fully addresses when and when not to use the tool.

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