codewiki_ask_repo

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 but offers minimal information. It implies a query operation but doesn't describe response format, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only or mutative. For a tool with three parameters and no structured safety hints, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing to understanding the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (three parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter semantics, behavioral traits, or output expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond a basic understanding of its purpose.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It doesn't explain the meaning or usage of 'repo', 'question', or 'history' parameters beyond their names. The description adds no semantic value beyond what's inferable from parameter names, leaving key details like repository format or history structure undocumented.

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 ('Ask a natural-language question') and the target resource ('about a repository indexed in codewiki.google'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'codewiki_fetch_repo' and 'codewiki_search_repos' that likely perform different operations. However, it doesn't specify what kind of information can be asked about (e.g., code, documentation, structure), making it slightly less specific than a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'codewiki_fetch_repo' or 'codewiki_search_repos'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the repository must be indexed), exclusions, or contextual cues for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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