ask_noul

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the result is calibrated rather than a raw score, it carries abstain safeguards, and it includes a confidence probability. It does not say when abstention triggers or how the prior influences the result, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the sibling-routing rule and the return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return fields (boolean answer, confidence, abstain flag), and it covers the key sibling alternative. Minor gaps remain around how abstention is decided and how the optional explicit state_pack relates to the 'current' one, but nothing blocking for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents project, statement, prior and state_pack. The description adds only the notion of a 'current state pack' and nothing about the prior's role or the expected statement phrasing, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: evaluating whether a proposition is true against the current state pack, with calibrated probability and abstain safeguards. It also differentiates itself from the sibling ask_score by naming the binary-vs-continuous distinction, so an agent can select correctly without opening either schema.

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 names the alternative (ask_score) and the exact condition that selects this tool over it: binary truth/falsehood rather than scoring an entity on a continuous scale. That is a direct when-to-use routing rule, not an implied one.

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