ask_operator

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses blocking behavior, typical latency ranges, cost and free-tier limits, immediate fallback behavior when the bridge is disabled, and the fact that replies return to the agent in the conversation.

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 longer than typical but every sentence adds a distinct operational detail: how to trigger, when to use, latency, cost, fallback, alternatives, and an example. Information is front-loaded with the core action and selection criteria.

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?

Given three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs to invoke correctly: input format, blocking semantics, timeout-adjacent latency expectations, fallback behavior, alternatives, and example usage. No critical operational context is missing.

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 should compensate. It does clarify message via an example and attached_baton_id as a way to save long content, but max_wait_seconds is never explained even though it directly relates to blocking/wait behavior. This leaves a meaningful gap for one of the three 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a question to the human operator via their Telegram and wait for their reply.' It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools by contrasting ASK (blocking) with notify_operator (one-way) and referencing ask_operator_email as a long-message alternative.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when you need a decision, approval, or clarification you can't infer from the conversation.' It also gives concrete alternative routes for long messages, operator-disabled bridge fallback, and one-way notification usage, leaving little ambiguity for an agent.

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