Ask Octopus

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 usefully states that answers come with context from indexed repositories and review history, but it does not explicitly confirm side effects, permissions, output shape, or behavior when no context is found. This is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every phrase adds relevant information about the tool's purpose and data sources.

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 simple Q&A tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use case and information source. It could mention how to use conversationId for follow-ups or what the response format looks like, but the schema already covers parameter mechanics and the tool is not complex.

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 100%, so the input schema already clearly documents question, repoId, and conversationId. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Ask') with a clear resource ('Octopus') and a well-defined subject ('a question about your code or a past review'). It also clarifies the answer draws on indexed repositories and review history, which differentiates it from sibling tools like octopus_status and octopus_review_changes.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever the user wants a contextual answer about code or a past review. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the general use case is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among its siblings.

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