tg_ask

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the waiting behavior, the interaction modality (button tap or text reply), and the critical timeout semantics: 'A timeout means no answer, which counts as 'no permission' — never treat silence as approval.' This is a non-obvious behavioral trait that goes well beyond a simple tool description.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, then usage and behavior notes, then the Args list. Every sentence adds value, and it is neither over- nor under-specified. The structure makes it easy to scan.

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 interactive nature (ask and wait), the description covers the essential context: what it asks, how the owner responds, and what timeout means. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. The tool's complexity is low, and the description is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 0%, but the description's Args section compensates fully. It explains each parameter: 'question: what to ask, in plain language', 'options: buttons to offer; defaults to yes/no', and 'timeout: seconds to wait, 10 to 3600'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema (e.g., default options, valid range).

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource phrase: 'Ask the owner a question through the agent's bot and wait for the answer.' It also provides examples of when to use it, distinguishing it from siblings like tg_send or tg_wait.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Use this when the decision is theirs and you are not at the keyboard with them.' It lists concrete scenarios (whether to send a draft, whether an action is really wanted, which of two options to take) and clarifies the timeout behavior as 'no permission', which effectively tells the agent when not to use it.

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