ask

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'read-only question'. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation by explaining the tool is 'AI-routed' and 'not interactive', and mentions `ask_user` for interactive scenarios. This gives clarity on how the tool behaves without contradicting 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and includes a crucial contrast with `ask_user`. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary padding.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 params, read-only annotation, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, interaction model, and a relevant alternative. The only minor gap is that the truncated ending ('wai…') suggests unfinished information, and it does not specify the answer format or edge cases, but this is not a critical deficiency for such a straightforward tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to clarify. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to add parameter details.

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 'Answer a read-only question about the Unity scene' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from ask_user by noting it is 'AI-routed, not interactive', which separates it from sibling tools.

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 explicit usage context by saying 'AI-routed, not interactive' and directs users to the alternative `ask_user` for interactive UI card needs. While it names one specific alternative, it could be more comprehensive about when to use this tool over other read-only siblings like get_hierarchy or inspect, but the guidance is clear enough.

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