ask_model

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that it starts a validation job, which aligns and provides context beyond annotations. However, it does not detail side effects, permissions, or what the validation job entails.

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, making it concise. However, the phrasing 'provider CLI' is slightly awkward and could be clearer.

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 has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and starting a validation job. It lacks detail on what the job does or how to interpret results, but it is minimally adequate.

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 description is not needed to explain parameters. It does not add extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 verb 'ask' and the resource 'one provider CLI', and adds context that it starts a validation job via a simplified surface. This differentiates it from more complex validation tools like 'validate_with_models'.

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 phrase 'simplified validation surface' implies a simpler use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., claude_request, validate_with_models). No exclusion criteria are provided.

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