ask_in_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect ('Both your question and the answer are saved to the thread'), clarifies retrieval behavior ('running RAG over the published knowledgebase'), and notes the return value ('Returns the answer plus source documents'). This is good but not exhaustive (e.g., no mention of rate limits or permission requirements).

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by behavior and return value. Every sentence earns its place; no padding.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value, usage context, and side effects. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, given sibling tools.

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 some context (e.g., categoryIds restrict retrieval during RAG), but the schema already explains parameter meanings. The description does not substantially enrich the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 function: 'Ask a question within an existing conversation thread.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing thread context ('prior messages as context') and follow-up capability, differentiating from ask_ai or search_documents.

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?

Usage context is implied clearly: use when an existing thread is held and contextual follow-ups are needed ('follow-ups like "and what about X?" work'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is enough for an agent to decide.

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