ask_utcp_expert

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'powered by OpenAI' and 'deep knowledge' but fails to mention latency, cost, or scope limitations. Performance mode parameter hints at speed but description omits this.

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 a single concise sentence with key information. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the expert nature, coverage, and output type (answers with examples and documentation). Missing info on return format is minor.

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 schema fully describes both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond schema, which is adequate. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 is for asking a UTCP expert agent any question about UTCP, with deep knowledge of the specification. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by emphasizing detailed, accurate answers with examples and documentation.

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 implies usage (ask any question about UTCP) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings like search_utcp_docs or semantic_search_docs. It lacks exclusions or context.

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