ask_codepeel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool can analyze and answer questions, which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, rate limits, or authentication requirements. This is acceptable for a simple query tool but leaves some ambiguity.

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 long, front-loading the primary purpose and then listing capabilities. It is efficient with no redundant wording, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points for capabilities). Overall, it 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and optional input. It does not specify return values, but for a conversational tool this is acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by emphasizing that the diff parameter is optional and for context, reinforcing its purpose beyond the schema. This extra context helps the agent understand how to use the diff effectively.

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's purpose: 'Ask CodePeel a question about code.' It lists specific capabilities like analyzing patterns, explaining issues, suggesting improvements, and answering architecture questions, which makes the tool's function distinct from siblings like fix_code (fixing) and review_code (reviewing). This provides a comprehensive and unambiguous definition.

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 implies usage for code-related questions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like fix_code or review_code. It mentions an optional diff for context but lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria, resulting in a moderately clear but incomplete directive.

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