tg_ask

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing the critical timeout behavior: 'A timeout means no answer, which counts as "no permission" — never treat silence as approval.' This is valuable behavioral context that annotations do not capture. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 core purpose, followed by usage context, a safety warning, and a compact Args section. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition of schema fields or annotation information.

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 that asks the owner and waits, the description covers purpose, when to use, answer mechanism, parameter semantics, and timeout significance. It does not describe the exact return format, but the phrase 'wait for the answer' and 'they answer by tapping a button or replying in text' imply the response is the answer, which is adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: question ('what to ask, in plain language'), options ('buttons to offer; defaults to yes/no'), and timeout ('seconds to wait, 10 to 3600'). It adds constraints like the timeout range that the schema does not provide.

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 the owner a question through the agent's bot and wait for the answer.' The examples clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like tg_alert or tg_notify by focusing on interactive decision-seeking and waiting for a human response.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the decision is theirs and you are not at the keyboard with them,' with concrete examples. It does not name alternative tools or give exclusion conditions, but the decision context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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