ask_ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that data is sent to OpenAI (an external service), but it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, latency, costs, privacy implications, error behavior, or whether the operation is asynchronous. This lack of detail for an external API call is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence of 9 words, cleanly structured and front-loaded with the core action. Every word is purposeful, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only explains the basic prompt-and-answer flow, leaving the optional parameters, return type details, and operational context (e.g., network dependencies, API requirements) unexplained. For an external API tool, this is insufficient for an agent to invoke it reliably.

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 0% and the description does not compensate. The description mentions 'prompt' but provides no meaningful semantics for the required 'prompt' parameter or the optional 'model' and 'system' parameters. The schema itself lacks descriptions, and the tool description fails to clarify their roles, defaults, or possible values.

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 'Send a prompt to OpenAI and return the answer' uses a specific verb ('send'), names the resource ('prompt to OpenAI'), and states the outcome ('return the answer'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which are all file/workspace operations.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what the tool does without explaining context for choosing it (e.g., for general AI queries) or how the optional model/system parameters affect usage.

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