ask_dxpert

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it names the underlying call (POST /api/chat), the return shape (text reply plus routing metadata), the read-only scope (reads no plant system, runs no agent, returns no scores), the quota consumption, and the specific failure modes 402 and 429. It also prescribes attribution behavior, which is unusual and valuable context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and cleanly partitioned by capitalized section headers, making it scannable despite its length. The ATTRIBUTION block is operational policy rather than tool description and adds bulk, but each labeled section still earns its place for an agent deciding whether to call.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still discloses the return shape and routing metadata, and covers errors, quota and scope boundaries. For a two-parameter advisory tool with no annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% across 2 parameters, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. 'text in, text out' and the sanitized-summary remark give some sense of the question parameter, but the history parameter is never mentioned and neither param's format or constraints are explained. Partial compensation only.

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+resource ('Ask dxpert.ai a question about industrial digital transformation') and enumerates the exact subject domains covered, including AI-readiness, UNS/namespace design and OT/IT architecture. It also names what it is not (run_agent / run_diagnostic), so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Contains explicit WHEN TO CALL and WHEN NOT TO CALL sections, including the exclusion for general programming and local repo work, plus a note not to re-ask the same question. It routes the agent to run_agent or run_diagnostic for scoring/agent tasks, which is exactly the alternative-selection guidance required.

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