ask-gpt

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses that it calls an external provider 'via the Codex CLI' with rate limits, and returns 'a text-wrapped JSON envelope { result }.' This adds meaningful behavioral context about side effects and output format.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a brief note on return format. Every sentence adds value—purpose, expert usage, provider details, rate limit caveat, and output structure. No filler or 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (all described in schema) and no output schema, the description covers the return format and a key behavioral detail (rate limits). However, it lacks usage context and guidance on when to pick this tool over siblings, leaving the agent without a complete picture for selection.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only minimal parameter semantics by mentioning that `expert` applies personas, but does not elaborate on `prompt`, `files`, or other parameters beyond what the schema already 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 states the tool provides a 'Single-provider second opinion via codex (advisory, single-shot),' specifying the provider and nature. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'ask-*' tools by naming 'codex' as the provider, but does not explicitly contrast with other single-provider alternatives like ask-gemini or ask-one, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., ask-gemini, ask-all, or expert tools). It mentions that on a named expert tool the persona is ignored, but this is a behavioral note, not a usage guideline. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative recommendation.

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