ask_user

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior: it can ask questions with options and importance. However, it omits details like response handling, limitations, or side effects. The description could be more transparent about potential downsides or usage limits.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key features. Every part is useful and there is no wasted text.

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 the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema/annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and key features. It could mention behavior when no questions are provided (since no required params) or response expectations, but overall it is sufficient.

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 description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that single or multiple questions are supported and mentions options and importance marking, which map to schema fields. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description elevates it by providing usage context.

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 purpose: '当 AI 需要更多信息、遇到不确定因素时使用' (use when AI needs more info or is uncertain). It also lists capabilities like asking single/multiple questions, providing options, marking importance, and being usable anytime. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on development tasks.

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 specifies when to use (when more info or uncertainty), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. However, the context makes it clear that ask_user is the only user-interaction tool among siblings.

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