ask-openrouter

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

Annotations already indicate read-only. The description adds behavioral context such as 'advisory' and 'single-shot', enhancing understanding of the tool's interaction pattern beyond the annotation.

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, using only two sentences with no redundant or unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or how to use most parameters, which is insufficient for effective 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially explains the 'expert' parameter. The other five parameters (prompt, developerInstructions, cwd, reasoningEffort, files) are left unexplained, leaving a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 is for a single-provider second opinion via openrouter, advisory, and single-shot. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ask-all (multi-provider) and ask-gpt (different provider) by specifying the provider and mode.

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 implies when to use (for a second opinion from openrouter or with an expert persona) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparisons to alternate tools among the many ask-* siblings.

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