ask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose the key side effect: the question is delivered to recipients' inboxes and urgent elevates it, i.e. this is a notifying write operation. It also discloses the return payload (question id and status). It stops short of stating anything about permissions, rate limits, or whether the call waits for a reply.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then mechanics, then the routing decision. Every sentence carries information, though the telegraphic fragments ('urgent flags it', 'Replies are recorded with answer.') read slightly clipped compared with the rest.

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 three-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies purpose, side effect, return shape, and the full ask/answer loop with the query alternative. Only the synchronous-vs-asynchronous question (does the caller wait for a reply?) is left unaddressed.

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 100% and each parameter's description already explains scope format, urgent default, and expected question content, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the existence of optional scope and the urgent flag without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Ask the project a question'), then states the delivery channel (project inboxes), the urgent flag behavior, and the return value (question id and status). It is clearly separable from siblings: 'query' is named as the non-notifying alternative and 'answer' as the reply path.

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?

Explicit routing is given: 'Use for a question that needs a person or another team to reply; try query first, since it searches existing answers without notifying anyone.' It names both the condition for use and the condition that selects the sibling instead, plus points to 'answer' for the reply half of the loop.

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