ask_question

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Ask a question') without any details on traits like response format, rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotations, as it leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence ('Ask a question to the LLM'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how responses are formatted, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool with no structured data to supplement it, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('question' and 'context'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

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 'Ask a question to the LLM' states a clear verb ('Ask') and resource ('question'), but it's vague about what the LLM is and lacks specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., generate_code, generate_code_to_file, generate_documentation), which also involve LLM interactions but for different purposes. The purpose is understandable but minimal.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives, exclusions, or context for usage. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for general queries versus code generation or documentation tasks, leaving the agent with no explicit usage instructions.

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