Ask an agent

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotent, so the agent knows this is a risky, side-effecting operation. The description adds the important blocking/waiting behavior and return fields (reply, session_id, usage), which complements annotations. However, it doesn't explain quota fallback, permission implications, or what makes it destructive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core behavior (run prompt, wait) and return values. No wasted words; every clause carries 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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and destructive/open-world annotations, the description is too thin. It omits session continuation behavior, fallback_agents semantics, output_schema handling, and permission_mode implications—all of which an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 90%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters including fallback_agents, session_id, and output_schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a clear verb+resource: run a prompt on an agent and wait for the answer. It distinguishes itself from siblings like start_task/wait_task by emphasizing synchronous blocking behavior ('wait for the answer (minutes)'), though it doesn't explicitly mention the async alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like start_task or send_message. The parenthetical '(minutes)' hints at synchronous blocking but doesn't state when to prefer it over async task tools 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.