Consult DeepSeek

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: files are attached by path (not pasted), and prior turns are passed via 'history' to build on them. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by two essential usage tips. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 fully covers the tool's purpose, main use cases, and important parameters. With 100% schema coverage and readOnly annotation, it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No output schema needed for this Q&A 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 coverage is 100%, giving baseline 3. The description adds practical guidance beyond schema: 'Attach files by path rather than pasting them' clarifies 'paths', and 'pass the prior turns in history' clarifies 'history'. This adds meaning for parameter usage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Ask') with resource 'DeepSeek' and scope 'a specific engineering question as a second opinion', listing concrete use cases. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling review tools which focus on reviewing changes or files.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (design trade-offs, uncertain decisions, hard-to-place bugs) and practical guidance on file attachment and multi-turn history. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the use cases make the intended usage clear.

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