ask_dispatcher

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does substantial work: the call blocks, there is exactly one question, the destination is pinned to the original dispatcher, scope is inherited, and there are no retries. It also frames the limit as cooperative rather than an OS sandbox, which is meaningful operational context. It does not say what a failed or unanswered call looks like.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its precondition front-loaded before the routing and sandbox caveats.

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?

Behavior is reasonably covered for a no-annotation tool, but with three fully undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about the sender field and about what a blocking ask actually returns.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies assignment_id must reference an assignment permitting questions and that message is the question, but the 'sender' parameter is never addressed and no format or constraint details are given for any field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: ask one blocking question about an assignment that explicitly allows it. The scope constraint ('explicitly allows it') plus 'no general routing' implicitly separates it from send_message/reply, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (the assignment must explicitly allow the question) and an exclusion (no general routing, no automatic retries), which tells the agent when to reach for a different messaging tool. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling to use instead.

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