ask_senior

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 states this is a 'consultation' tool, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or describe any behavioral traits such as response format, latency, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 tool's complexity (a consultation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., advice, code snippets, or references), how to interpret responses, or any behavioral context. With zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it falls short.

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 the single parameter 'question' documented as 'The question or problem to solve.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints on question format. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 as 'General purpose consultation with a senior AI developer mentor,' which specifies the action (consultation) and resource (senior AI developer mentor). It distinguishes from siblings like 'architecture_advice' and 'code_review' by being broader and more general rather than focused on specific domains. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'reset_history,' which might be a different type of tool.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'ask_senior' over 'architecture_advice' or 'code_review' (e.g., for general vs. specific questions), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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