ask_review

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

With no annotations, the description thoroughly covers behavior: it posts to the review thread, pings the channel so away reviewers notice, blocks waiting for an answer, returns 'answered' with the answer or 'still_awaiting' with an ask_id on timeout, and includes polling and timeout mechanics. No contradictions.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the second adds necessary details about behavior and return values. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the primary use case, return values (answer vs. still_awaiting), and the follow-up action (wait_for_reply). However, it omits error handling (e.g., invalid review_id) and does not detail the channel parameter's effect on pinging. Overall sufficient but not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., explaining poll_seconds and timeout_seconds usage) but does not significantly enhance the already clear schema descriptions.

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 asks a follow-up question in Slack and waits for an answer. It distinguishes itself from siblings like wait_for_reply and send_to_slack by specifying the exact mechanism (posting in thread, pinging channel) and noting that it blocks for a reply.

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 instructs to 'ALWAYS use this instead of asking in the console,' providing a clear when-to-use. It also mentions wait_for_reply as a follow-up step. However, it does not compare against other sibling tools like capture_window or check_review, leaving some ambiguity.

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