ask_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the answer returns as a tool result, that the question is recorded verbatim, and it describes an error path. This is more transparent than most, though it does not cover potential side effects or permissions (likely none needed for a user prompt).

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 front-loaded with purpose, then gives usage guidance, fallback, and parameter details. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. The parameter block is efficiently formatted.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, fallback, and parameter origins. For a simple user-prompt tool, this is complete enough for reliable invocation without further clarification.

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%, but each parameter is given meaningful context in the description: session_id comes from start_topic, element_id from next_drill, and question must be worded exactly as the user sees it. This adds far more meaning than the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Put your drill question to the user and return their answer.' This distinguishes it from siblings like start_topic or next_drill, which handle different stages of a drill workflow.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer this over asking in chat,' and provides a clear fallback: if the tool errors, ask in chat and pass `question` and `answer` to `grade_drill`. This gives direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an alternative named.

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