ask_human

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool asks a question and blocks until the human responds, which is important interactive behavior. However, it does not explain what happens with options or urgency, whether the call pauses execution, or what the human's response means beyond being returned.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The purpose, trigger condition, and an important parameter instruction are all front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is easy to parse quickly.

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 essential flow and project_root, but with five parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, it leaves context, options, and urgency undefined. The output schema existing helps with return values, but parameter semantics remain materially incomplete for effective agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds meaning for project_root ('Always pass project_root as the current working directory') and implicitly for question, but context, options, and urgency are entirely unexplained. The compensation is partial at best.

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'), the resource ('the human'), and the behavior ('wait for their response'), making the tool's core function obvious. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like confirm_decision or check_assumption, but the 'direct question' framing distinguishes it from assumption-checking and confirmation workflows.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Call this whenever uncertain.' This is a clear condition for use, though it does not specify when not to use the tool or name alternatives such as confirm_decision or check_assumption. That keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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