ask_claude

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavior: the call returns immediately with an agent ID, results are queued/running, and a pending status is not a timeout. It could add outcome or failure details, but the essential async behavior is clearly exposed.

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?

Three sentences, all high-signal: the first states the core mechanism, the second prevents a common misuse, the third routes to the correct sibling. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For an asynchronous creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the required follow-up (get_claude_agent), the non-timeout nature of pending results, and the sibling to use for workspace work. It lacks explicit mention of cancellation or waiting tools, but the essential invocation context is 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 description coverage is moderate (60%); model, max_tokens, and reasoning_effort are already documented in the schema, while prompt and messages are left to their names and structure. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline rather than improving on the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Start') with a clear resource ('a Claude consultation') and states the immediate output ('return an agent ID'). It distinguishes itself from spawn_claude_agent by excluding workspace work, and from get_claude_agent by framing it as the collection step.

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?

It gives direct workflow guidance: collect the answer via get_claude_agent, never resubmit while pending, and use spawn_claude_agent for workspace work. This tells an agent exactly when this tool is appropriate and which sibling to choose instead.

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