ask

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

The description reveals that type filters by category id and at enables temporal queries, but does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, affects state, or has other behavioral traits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and is only partially adequate.

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 very short and front-loaded with the key concept, but it is cryptic and could be more concise with clearer phrasing. Every sentence earns its place, but the second sentence is dense and hard to parse.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the projection concept fully, lacks examples, and does not reference the output schema. An agent would likely need additional context.

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. It explains 'type' and 'at' but leaves 'fixed' and 'ask' largely unexplained. The vague phrase 'fix some roles, ask for others' hints at their purpose but is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter meanings.

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 states it is a query tool using projection, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_entity or assert_situation. However, it does not clearly explain what 'fix some roles, ask for others' means in practical terms.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies querying but does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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