ask_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions natural language filtering but omits critical details such as whether the tool is read-only, any required permissions, error handling, or response format. This lack of behavioral context makes it difficult for an agent to anticipate side effects or constraints.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and a key prerequisite. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no superfluous 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns (e.g., answers to questions, respondent counts). It also fails to mention the 15-question limit from the schema or how to handle invalid filters. The tool is a query endpoint, yet the description provides no information about response structure or error conditions.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds modest value by explaining that filter uses natural language and that list_projects provides project IDs, but these points are largely redundant with the schema's parameter descriptions. 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 clearly states 'Ask questions to a filtered subset of a project's survey panel', specifying a concrete verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from list_projects by mentioning a prerequisite, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools ask_audience and ask_twins, which may have overlapping purposes.

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 provides a clear usage hint: 'Use list_projects first to see available projects', which helps with context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like ask_audience or ask_twins, nor does it mention any exclusions or when not to use it.

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