workload_ask

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the assistant 'may query the database read-only' (consistent with the hint) and, more importantly, the answer is delivered asynchronously to the chat inbox via sql_editor_inbox with editor_id = chat_id. That delivery mechanism is behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and then the result destination. Efficient with no filler, though the parenthetical is slightly dense.

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 correctly explains where the answer lands (the inbox), which is the key return behavior. However, for a 5-parameter tool with nested objects and zero schema documentation, the parameters and their roles remain unaddressed, leaving an incomplete picture.

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 0% across 5 parameters (including nested objects 'workload' and 'run'). The description only implicitly ties chat_id to the inbox's editor_id and references 'workload'; question, run, and profile are left entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Ask the in-app assistant about a workload.' It also names the destination of the result (the chat inbox), which helps an agent understand the interaction model. It stops short of differentiating itself from close siblings like sql_editor_ask, workload_tune, or workload_chat_context.

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?

Usage is implied (pose a question about a workload, read the answer in the inbox) but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as sql_editor_ask or workload_compare. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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