copilot_ask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds meaningful behavioral context: it specifies the WebSocket mechanism, that it uses the saved conversation, that it will not automatically retry an uncertain send, and that returned content is external data rather than instructions. These are important operational and safety details, though permissions, rate limits, and error behavior remain undocumented.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. The behavioral warnings are separated into distinct lines, making the structure easy to scan.

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 a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the mechanism, conversation context, retry safety, and external-data warning well. It could still say more about the expected response shape or failure modes, but it is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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% for the single 'prompt' parameter, so the description must compensate but does not. It never explains prompt format, length expectations, or how the prompt is interpreted, leaving the sole parameter semantically thin.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Ask Copilot.' It also distinguishes the mechanism ('direct WebSocket requests, without a browser') and scope ('Uses the saved conversation'), which differentiates it from siblings like copilot_new_chat and copilot_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 implies when to use it by saying it uses the saved conversation, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as copilot_new_chat or copilot_status. It also gives a retry caution, which helps guide invocation behavior, but there is no clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use routing guidance.

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