Ask Question MCP App

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 describes key behaviors like waiting for user response and returning the answer, and mentions timeout with a default value. However, it lacks details on error handling, UI appearance, or what happens if the user cancels.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with core functionality. It efficiently covers the tool's purpose and key features without unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by separating behavioral aspects.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, interactive UI) and no annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic flow and input types but lacks details on return values, error cases, or UI constraints, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how options are displayed or the implications of different input types. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('ask', 'waits', 'returns') and resources ('user', 'question', 'interactive UI'), and distinguishes it from its sibling submit_answer by focusing on initiating queries rather than responding to them.

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 implies usage when needing user input via interactive dialogs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It mentions support for various input types, which gives some contextual guidance.

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