team_ask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: an immediate live-status response, a ~20 second synchronous answer when the peer agent is active, and fallback delivery via 'team news' otherwise. It omits whether the call has any side effects (e.g., does it affect the teammate's state or notify them), which is a gap for an inter-agent messaging 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the timing/delivery information in the second sentence earns its place. Slightly dense but free of 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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the key missing context: the response arrives immediately as live status and the actual answer may be deferred to team news. It could still clarify what the immediate status payload contains.

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 coverage is 100%, so 'to' and 'question' are already documented in the schema. The description illustrates the kind of question to supply but adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (ask) and resource (a teammate's agent) and grounds it with three concrete example questions, so the agent knows the operation is a directed question to a peer agent rather than a broadcast. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like team_post or team_reply, leaving that distinction to inference.

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?

Three example scenarios ('what they are doing', 'whether you may change a file they hold', 'why they chose something') make the intended use case clear, and the async delivery note implies when a synchronous alternative is not needed. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative sibling tool.

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