comet_ask

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 adds useful context about the tool being 'blocking' and suitable for browser interactions, but it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes a 'complete response'. This leaves gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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 the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise elaboration on ideal use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (involving browser interactions and research) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and usage context but omits details on return values, error conditions, and operational constraints, which are important for a blocking tool with potential timeouts.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (prompt, newChat, timeout). The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the format of 'prompt' or typical use cases for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles the documentation.

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 specific action ('Send a prompt to Comet/Perplexity and wait for the complete response') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's 'blocking' and ideal for 'real browser interaction' or 'deep research with agentic browsing', unlike tools like comet_screenshot or comet_folders.

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 clear context on when to use this tool ('Ideal for tasks requiring real browser interaction... or deep research with agentic browsing'), which helps differentiate it from non-browser or non-research siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings.

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