ask_user

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is an interactive UI that waits for a user answer. This blocking behavior is not captured by annotations and is crucial for an agent to know before invoking the tool. No contradictions found.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and provides an alternative. It is concise and efficient, though the truncation at the end prevents a perfect score.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema) and the presence of read-only annotation, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, behavior, and provides an alternative for a related scenario. The truncation leaves a small gap, but the core information is present.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details, and the schema with empty object is fully covered. No additional semantic info is required.

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's function: showing a question card in Unity chat and waiting for a user answer. This is a specific verb+resource pairing. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'ask' by explicitly naming the alternative for read-only AI scene questions.

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 an explicit alternative: 'use `ask` for read-only AI scene questions', which implies this tool is for interactive user prompts, not read-only scene queries. While not exhaustive on when to use this vs other tools, it gives clear context for a common case.

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