zahadun_ask

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a task identifier and that the result is asynchronously retrieved via zahadun_task. It also explains the `temat` parameter's role as a shared contextId. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema, though it omits error behavior or side effects.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and uses no filler words. It efficiently communicates the core action, return value, and a key parameter detail.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no annotations, yet the description only covers one parameter and the basic flow. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., knowing a peer) or provide context for other parameters. While an output schema exists and may cover return values, the overall context is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only explains `temat`, providing no additional meaning for peer, model, zadanie, or narzedzie. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so for most parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Zleca zadanie peerowi w siatce' (assigns a task to a peer in the grid). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining that the result is obtained via zahadun_task, making this a task-creation tool rather than a retrieval tool.

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 provides clear workflow guidance by stating 'wynik odbierz przez zahadun_task' (retrieve result via zahadun_task), indicating when to use this tool and what to do next. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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