ask_user_advice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states that the tool asks the user for advice, but fails to describe important aspects like whether the agent blocks awaiting a response, the format of the user's reply, or the effect of the 'urgency_level' parameter on behavior.

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 concise with two short sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second provides the usage context. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler.

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 involves human interaction, the description lacks important details such as whether the agent waits for a response, how the urgency level affects the interaction, and what the output contains. While the output schema exists (as indicated), the description should still provide enough behavioral context for correct usage.

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 already documents each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the overall purpose. With full schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: asking the user for advice when uncertain or needing guidance. The verb 'ask' and resource 'user' are explicit. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'ask_mcp_advice', which serves a similar purpose but for the MCP system instead of a human user.

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 context for when to use ('when you're unsure...or need human input'), but it lacks explicit exclusions or mention of alternatives like 'ask_mcp_advice'. No guidance on when not to use this tool is given.

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