ask_vc6

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it discloses that output is sourced rather than hallucinated, that the tool is unofficial, that it explicitly says 'I don't know' and redirects to Discord/email, and that it must never invent 2027 ticket prices. These are highly relevant honesty and fallback behaviors for an AI Q&A 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?

The description is three compact sentences, each earning its place: what it does, how it handles unknown cases, and the specific prohibition on inventing ticket prices. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core behavior, fallback behavior, and honesty constraints well. It lacks explicit return-format details and clear routing against sibling tools, but the provided behavior is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly in most cases.

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 already describes the single 'question' parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful nuance that the question should be natural-language and VC6-related, but it does not provide examples or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 that ask_vc6 turns a natural-language VC6 question into a sourced briefing from public vibe.camp pages. This distinguishes it well from search-style siblings in practice, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or contrast itself with search_vc6.

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 phrase 'natural-language VC6 question' implies this is for open-ended questions rather than structured search, but the description never explicitly says 'use this instead of search_vc6' or provides exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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