ask_user_questions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states that the tool sends questions, waits for answers, and opens an interactive modal, implying a blocking, user-facing interaction. However, it does not detail potential failure modes (e.g., timeout handling, user dismissal) or the return format, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 composed of two short, purposeful sentences that immediately convey the core function and user-visible effect. There is no redundant or extraneous information—every word 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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should elaborate on the return value, blocking semantics, and error cases. It covers the basic workflow but leaves out important operational details like what happens on timeout or if the user cancels, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The schema covers the 'timeout' well with its own description, but the 'questions' parameter (which is required) has no direct description and the tool description does not explain how to structure questions or what each field means. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 action ('Send questions to browser user and wait for answers') and the mechanism ('Opens an interactive Q&A modal'). This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools (debug reports, backlog items), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context: this tool is used when you need to ask the user questions and wait for responses. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the context is unambiguous and there are no direct competing tools among the siblings, so the guidance is sufficient.

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