Ask sci-bot a scientific question

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses asynchronous submission, immediate ticket issuance, slow queue behavior, and the need to poll for the answer. It does not mention failure modes or queue limits, but it covers the most important runtime behavior.

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 economical sentences: the first states the action and immediate result, the second adds the essential async caveat and polling instruction. No filler or redundancy.

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 an async submission tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing pieces: immediate ticket return and the ticketId-based polling flow. With full parameter schema coverage, the invocation contract is complete, though error handling and timing expectations are not detailed.

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 schema already documents all three parameters and their defaults. The description adds only the queue/ticket context, not additional parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline expectation of 3.

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 states a specific action ('Puts a question into the sci-bot.ru queue') and a concrete result ('returns a ticket immediately'). It also names the natural sibling, scibot_check_question, which makes the tool's role in the async workflow clear.

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 to poll scibot_check_question with the returned ticketId, and explains why (queue is slow, single generation slot). It does not enumerate other alternatives or exclusion cases, but the core usage flow is clearly communicated.

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