ask_hermes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool spawns a one-shot `hermes chat -q`, is slower/heavier than the async mailbox, and returns `{"ok", "reply"}` or `{"ok": false, "error"}`. This covers key behavioral traits, though it omits details like timeout or prompt handling.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information (what, when, return shape). No wasted words.

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?

For a one-parameter synchronous tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the operation, the use case, the performance tradeoff, and the exact return format. Nothing essential is missing.

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. The phrase 'Ask ... a question' indicates that the single `prompt` parameter is the question text, but no further formatting, length, or constraints are provided. This is sufficient for a simple string parameter but not richly detailed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Ask the Hermes agent (MrAnderson) a question and wait for its reply.' It also distinguishes itself from the async mailbox by describing the synchronous one-shot nature, which differentiates it from sibling async tools.

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?

It explicitly states 'use it when you need an answer NOW' and contrasts this with the 'async mailbox', which is slower/heavier by comparison. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and a named alternative.

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