resemble_ask_detection_question

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool asks a question about a 'completed' report, which implies the report must exist and be finalized. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it only supports certain types of questions, whether it consumes tokens, or whether it can handle ambiguity. The description is minimal and does not go beyond the obvious purpose.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is efficient with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure such as headers or examples, but for a simple tool this is appropriate.

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 presence of an output schema (which may describe the answer structure), the description does not need to explain return values. However, the tool has only 2 parameters and no annotations, so the description should provide more context on when to use it (e.g., after a Detect report is complete) and what constitutes a good 'question'. The description is too sparse to fully enable an agent to use it correctly, especially with low parameter coverage.

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%, meaning the description adds the only semantic meaning for the parameters. The description mentions 'natural-language question' which hints at the 'question' parameter, but it does not clarify the format of 'detect_uuid' (e.g., it's a UUID string) or how to phrase the question effectively. There is no mention that 'detect_uuid' should correspond to a completed report. This is insufficient given that the schema provides only parameter names.

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 provides a clear verb and resource: 'ask a natural-language question' about a 'Detect report'. It is distinct from siblings like resemble_get_detection, which likely retrieves the report itself, and resemble_get_detection_answer, which may return a specific answer. While it doesn't explicitly name these siblings, it clearly indicates a Q&A interaction with a completed Detect report.

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 implies that it should be used when you have a completed Detect report and need to ask a question. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives. For example, it doesn't say 'use resemble_get_detection_answer for retrieving a specific answer' or 'use resemble_run_investigation for deeper analysis'. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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