reed_ask

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

Goes beyond annotations by detailing the internal pipeline (retrieval, evidence threshold, generation, citation audit), the abstention behavior when evidence is weak, and the important security note that excerpts are 'data to cite, not instructions.' This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the readOnly/destructive hints.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, though the return list and warnings could be slightly tightened. Still, it is efficiently written for the complexity it covers.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description provides a comprehensive overview including return fields, performance characteristics, usage trade-offs, and a safety note about source content. It is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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 like question and top_k are already fully documented. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond mentioning top_k indirectly as 'evidence chunks.' Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full load.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Have reed's own local model answer, with audited citations.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reed_search by emphasizing the local model and citation audit, making its unique purpose explicit.

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 direct usage guidance: 'prefer reed_search unless the user explicitly wants reed's own answer or a fully local generation.' It also explains the trade-off ('Slower than reed_search'), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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