janus_ask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that answers are 'grounded on real product knowledge and live data,' signaling reliability and data access. It does not detail response format or failure modes, but the read-only Q&A nature is implied by 'Ask Janus.'

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and provides concrete example topics. Every clause adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple Q&A tool with one required parameter, but it omits explanation of the 'mode' parameter and does not clarify the expected response format. Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more detail about mode behavior would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is only 50%; the 'question' parameter is described both in the schema and by the tool description, but the 'mode' parameter has no description beyond its enum values and default. The description does not explain what 'human' vs 'agent' mode means or when to use one over the other, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 identifies the action ('Ask Janus'), the specific resource (UBOS Kinematic Drive concierge), and the exact scope (getting/using a private Kinematic Drive, including pricing, privacy, and connecting an agent). This distinguishes it from the operational sibling tools like kinematic_provision and kinematic_status.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: for questions about getting or using a private Kinematic Drive. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the topical scope is sufficiently clear to guide an agent.

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