coeus_ask

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a meaningful trait—calls are provider-neutral and routed—but it does not explain what happens with provider=auto, whether calls are synchronous, what the response shape is, or any side effects or side effects like cost/rate limits.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and key qualifiers. There is no redundant or filler wording; it earns its place without being padded.

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 is complex—13 parameters, 5 enums, no output schema, and no annotations—so one sentence is insufficient. The agent is left without context about how the routed provider is selected, what the returned content looks like, or how parameters like thinking_budget and reasoning_effort affect behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The tool description itself does not clarify enum semantics like 'speed' or 'budget', but the schema at least names and types each parameter, so no severe documentation gap exists.

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 uses a specific verb ('Make') with a clear resource ('provider-neutral prompt call') and a defining qualifier ('routed model provider'). It is not a tautology and conveys the core function, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools like coeus_route or coeus_analyze.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'provider-neutral' weakly implies a general-purpose prompt call, but there are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing conditions given the many sibling tools.

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