ask

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

Without annotations, description carries full burden and clearly discloses blocking behavior, timeout, and dependency on target's state. However, it does not discuss error handling or edge cases like unrecognized questions.

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?

Concise and well-structured: purpose is front-loaded, mechanics in sentence two, usage note at the end. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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's complexity (synchronous peer question-answer with timeout), the description covers all essentials: sending mechanics, peer discovery, blocking, timeout, and target requirement. Output schema exists, so lack of return value detail is acceptable.

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 coverage is 0% but description adds meaning: explains to_cid prefix acceptance and hints at using peers(), and describes timeout_s behavior. Provides context beyond schema fields.

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 tool sends a question to a peer and waits synchronously for an answer. It specifies the mechanism (whisper with kind='question') and distinguishes from other peer communication tools like whisper and broadcast.

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?

Explicitly explains mechanics, timeout, and prerequisite that target must be in a wait() loop or actively calling inbox()+respond(). Suggests using peers() to find available cids, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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