zeph_ask

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Blocks until the user responds or the timeout is reached' and 'Requires ZEPH_HOOK_ID environment variable'. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 7 parameters, full schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description lacks an explicit statement about the return value (e.g., what the user response looks like). It explains blocking and environment variable requirement but is not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant additional meaning to parameters beyond the schema, e.g., it doesn't explain the response format or parameter interactions.

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 'Ask the user a question with optional quick-reply buttons and a text input field', specifying the verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like zeph_prompt (buttons only) and zeph_input (text only) by highlighting the combination.

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 implies usage by stating 'Combines prompt (buttons) and input (text) in a single notification', differentiating it from sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions, so it's slightly less explicit.

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