ask_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and covers key behavior: sends via Telegram, waits for user response, supports optional inline buttons, and adds the explicit 10-minute timeout. It does not state what happens after a timeout, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the main verb and behavior are front-loaded, optionality is stated, and the timeout is appended as an important constraint.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool, this is mostly complete: it covers message, optional buttons, transport, and timeout. The main missing piece is what happens after timeout or what the returned response looks like, especially since no output schema exists.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight context ('Telegram', 'quick replies') but mostly restates what the schema already says about the message and buttons parameters.

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 names a specific action ('Send a question'), target ('to the user via Telegram'), and key behavior ('wait for their response'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling notify_user, which is for one-way communication.

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 conveys a clear usage context: use when you need an interactive reply from the user, as opposed to sending a one-way notification. However, it does not explicitly mention notify_user or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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