ask_cline

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one important trait: file edits are not approved. However, it leaves other behaviors unstated, such as how the CLI is invoked, whether commands can be executed, what side effects may occur, and how errors or partial responses are handled.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the safety constraint earns its place. It is concise without sacrificing the key message.

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 five parameters and no annotations or output schema, yet the description only covers the high-level action and a single safety note. It omits any explanation of cwd, thinking levels, system prompt, timeout settings, or return value shape, making it incomplete for reliable 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It does not mention or explain any of the five parameters (prompt, cwd, thinking, systemPrompt, timeoutSeconds), providing no semantic value beyond what the plain parameter names suggest.

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 and resource: 'Ask the locally installed Cline CLI for an analysis/chat response.' This makes the basic purpose evident. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling ask_cline_workspace, though the 'locally installed' phrasing hints at a distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus ask_cline_workspace, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The sentence 'File edits are not approved' is a constraint, not usage guidance.

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