ask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavior disclosure; it does say outputs are grounded and cited, a meaningful trait. However, it does not mention limitations, confidence, citation format, or whether the agent can refuse/ask follow-ups, leaving the behavioral profile thin.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core instruction and return behavior front-loaded. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key behavior and return characteristic. It is mostly complete, though the lack of sibling differentiation and parameter detail keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 schema has a single required `question` string with no field description, and the description does not elaborate on expected question format, length, or scope. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic detail to compensate for 0% schema coverage.

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?

States a specific action ('Ask') on a distinct resource ('self-reflective knowledge agent') and its output ('grounded, cited answer'). It does not explicitly compare itself to search_kb, but the resource and output type give enough differentiation for a general sense.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to ask versus using search_kb, nor any exclusions or conditions. The name and description imply Q&A usage, but the agent is not told when to choose this tool over the sibling.

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