kb_ask

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral detail: an internal agent performs search and synthesis, and the call may take ~10s, which helps with tool selection and timeout expectations. Since no annotations are provided, this adds real context, though it does not cover failure cases such as what happens when the KB lacks an answer.

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 one tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the latency/mechanism note set off in parentheses. There is no filler or repetition; every clause contributes useful information.

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?

The tool is simple, has only one required string parameter, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, mechanism, and latency, but lacks explicit routing guidance relative to sibling tools, which is a minor completeness gap.

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%, and the description only implicitly defines the single 'question' parameter as the query to be answered from the KB. It adds minimal semantic detail beyond the property name, but the parameter is self-evident enough that the lack of explicit format, length, or example guidance is not a major gap.

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 states a specific verb ('answer') and resource ('domain knowledge base'), and the parenthetical clarifies that it synthesizes via an internal agent. It positions the tool as a grounded Q&A tool distinct from the retrieval-style siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with kb_search, kb_get, or kb_list.

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 this tool is for natural-language questions that need a synthesized answer, but it never explicitly states when to choose kb_ask over kb_search/kb_get/kb_list or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, leaving the routing decision to the agent's inference.

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