ask_rag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a trigger condition, not the tool's actual behavior (e.g., retrieving relevant documents and generating an answer), potential side effects, or authentication requirements. This is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the primary use case without any wasted words. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which eliminates the need to explain return values), the description is too sparse to provide complete context. It does not explain what the tool does with the query, how it retrieves information, or any constraints. For a 1-parameter tool, this is still insufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the 'query' parameter. It does not describe what the query should contain, its format, or how it is used. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but no additional semantics are added beyond the schema's type and title.

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 identifies the tool as a query mechanism for existing materials or a knowledge base, using the verb '查询' (query) and specifying the resource. It is distinct enough given the context, though it could be more explicit about the nature of the retrieval (e.g., RAG-based 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?

The description provides a clear when-to-use condition: 'when the user wants to query existing materials or needs a knowledge base.' It implies a specific context and is actionable, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tools since no siblings are provided.

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