ask

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

The description explains the blocking behavior, the mechanics of posting a whisper and waiting, and the timeout effect. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.) are consistent. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations, such as the kind of whisper and the need for the target to be in a loop.

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 concise with 5 sentences, clearly front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, mechanics, usage hints, and a caution. No superfluous text.

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 tool has 3 parameters and an output schema (implied), the description covers the mechanics, prerequisites, and edge cases (timeout, idle target). It provides sufficient context for correct invocation without needing to inspect the output schema.

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 description adds meaning to `to_cid` (use peers, 8-char prefix) and `timeout_s` (blocks until timeout). However, it doesn't explicitly describe all parameters, though schema coverage is 0%. The parameter `question` is self-explanatory. The description compensates well but could list parameters more explicitly.

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 the action: 'Send a question to a peer and wait synchronously for their answer.' It specifies the verb (send), resource (question to peer), and behavior (synchronous wait). The tool is distinguished from siblings like whisper or broadcast by mentioning it's a whisper with kind='question' that blocks.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use peers() to find available cids; 8-char prefix accepted.' It also warns about prerequisites: 'requires the target to be in a wait() loop or actively calling inbox()+respond(). If they're idle, you'll just timeout.' This helps the agent decide when to use it.

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