Ask Question MCP App

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions internal use by the question UI, hinting at context, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, response format, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds context efficiently. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating usage from behavior, but overall it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on what happens after submission, error scenarios, or interaction with the sibling tool. The internal use hint is insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 both parameters fully. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. 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 action ('submit an answer') and target resource ('to a pending question'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'ask_question' beyond mentioning it's used internally by the question UI, which is helpful but not explicit about functional distinction.

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 minimal guidance with 'Used internally by the question UI,' which implies a specific context but doesn't offer explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives, or exclusions. No mention of when to use this versus the sibling 'ask_question' tool, leaving gaps in practical usage advice.

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