hermes_ask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the execution is non-interactive and can invoke 'the agent's own tools, skills and memory,' implying possible side effects. It does not explain permission needs, timeout behavior, or the risk that the agent may perform arbitrary actions through its tools.

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 short sentences with no filler: purpose first, execution mode second, usage guidance third. Every sentence contributes new information beyond what the schema or annotations already provide.

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?

With an output schema present, return values do not need to be described. However, since annotations are absent and the schema leaves model and timeout_seconds opaque, the description does not fully cover execution configuration or the side-effect potential of an agent that can use tools. It is adequate for a simple prompt-only call but incomplete for a powerful agent-execution tool.

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. It only gives meaning to the prompt parameter by calling it 'a task.' The optional model and timeout_seconds parameters receive no explanation, leaving an agent unable to reason about when or how to set them.

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 action and resource: 'Give the Hermes agent a task and return its reply.' It also clarifies the mode as 'one non-interactive turn with the agent's own tools, skills and memory.' However, it does not name a specific sibling or explain how this differs from general-purpose siblings like shell or cron_run, only broadly separating 'inspection and config' 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?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use signal: 'Use this for work; use the specific tools below for inspection and config.' This is clear context, but it is high-level and does not spell out when to choose this over shell or cron tools, which could also be used for work.

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