Ask Bee

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context about gateway-enforced plan, tenant policy, token allowance and usage metering, plus the fact that output is generated text. It stops short of describing error behavior or latency/streaming.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: routing rule first, then return value, then policy/metering constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description does state the return type ('generated text'), and all five parameters are fully documented in the schema while annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing critical is missing, though a hint about model-tier selection trade-offs would round it out.

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% and both enums are documented inline, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only alludes to 'domain and model tier' without adding syntax, constraints, or tier trade-offs beyond what the schema already states – baseline 3.

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 the resource (general or specialist questions) and the output (generated text from the selected domain and model tier), so the agent knows this is the general-purpose chat/completion endpoint. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as the fallback when no more specific Bee tool fits, though it never names those siblings.

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?

'Use for general or specialist questions that do not require a more specific Bee tool' gives a clear when-to-use condition and a category-level when-not. The weakness is that the alternatives (bee_code, bee_security, bee_research) exist in the sibling list but are never named, leaving the agent to infer the routing itself.

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