ask_project

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses synchronous execution, credit cost, and temporal scope (last 14 days). While it doesn't detail error conditions or data freshness guarantees, the coverage is sufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the critical usage guidance (cost and alternatives) is included 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?

Despite no output schema, the description does not specify the format of the answer (e.g., text, structured). It also omits error scenarios (e.g., project not found, credits insufficient). While the core function is clear, completeness is slightly lacking for a QA 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% with both parameters (question, project_id) documented. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's existing descriptions, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('ask'), resource ('project'), and scope ('grounded in its indexed codebase, connected baselines and last 14 days of activity'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_handoffs and list_insights by emphasizing synchronous execution and credit cost.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'prefer list_handoffs / list_insights when an existing artifact already answers it.' It also clarifies behavior (synchronous, no polling) and cost (2 credits), providing clear guidance on when to invoke.

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