comet_ask

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a blocking operation ('wait for the complete response'), mentions use cases involving browser interaction (login walls, dynamic content, forms), and implies it's for complex tasks. It doesn't cover aspects like rate limits or error handling, but provides substantial context beyond basic functionality.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core functionality, and the second sentence provides crucial usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no output schema and no annotations, the description provides good purpose and usage context. However, it doesn't describe what the response looks like (format, structure, potential errors) or address authentication needs, which would be helpful given the browser interaction mention. It's adequate but has clear gaps in output expectations.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 specific action ('Send a prompt to Comet/Perplexity and wait for the complete response') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's 'blocking' and 'ideal for tasks requiring real browser interaction or deep research with agentic browsing', which differentiates it from non-blocking or simpler query 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 clear context on when to use this tool ('Ideal for tasks requiring real browser interaction... or deep research with agentic browsing'), which helps differentiate it from alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific sibling alternatives for comparison.

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