ask_specialist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It omits whether the call is synchronous, how long it may take, what auth or quota applies, and what quality_floor actually controls — all material for a remote specialist-invocation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. The second sentence is a slightly run-on enumeration of two parameters, but the density is appropriate for the space available.

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 takes 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage with no annotations, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Even so, quality_floor is never mentioned and no sibling-routing guidance is given, leaving the definition under-specified for its 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 4 parameters. It usefully documents the model format ('mt/auto, mt/<arena> or a pin') and gives a concrete context example, but leaves quality_floor and the requirements of question completely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Send a request to a Microtensor specialist.' An agent understands the action clearly, but the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings like list_models or routing_tasks, nor explain what a 'specialist' returns versus those alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The 'for SQL, the schema as CREATE TABLE statements' aside hints at context usage but never says when to call this tool instead of list_models or routing_tasks, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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