ask_agent

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only states the action without disclosing side effects, return behavior, or prerequisites. The existence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return format, but the description still doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation or if there are any mutating effects, leaving a significant transparency gap.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple two-parameter tool, and the essential purpose is stated up front.

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 only two parameters and an output schema, the description leaves out critical usage context: it does not explain when to use this tool instead of execute_sql, how to determine the correct agent_id, or what types of questions are supported. The tool is part of a DB-related set, and such context is necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has zero property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that agent_id refers to a specific agent, but offers no details about the question parameter (e.g., language, format, allowed topics) or how to obtain valid agent_ids. This minimal addition is insufficient given the complete lack of schema coverage.

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 a specific DB agent' clearly states the action (ask) and target (a specific DB agent), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_agents, execute_sql, and delete_db. It also implies the need for an identifier, which aligns with the required agent_id parameter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use execute_sql instead of asking an agent, or how to obtain agent_id via list_agents). The description offers no contextual direction for selection or preconditions.

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