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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' and 'No input' imply a read-only, zero-argument retrieval, and it states the returned content. It omits explicit auth, rate-limit, or side-effect details, but those are minimal for this simple read tool.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load what is returned and then the required follow-up workflow. Every clause adds useful information 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return formatting. It supplies the purpose, expected content, workflow, and no-input constraint, which is complete for this retrieval 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's 'No input' matches the empty input schema and leaves no ambiguity about arguments.

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 and resource: 'Return the 4 intake questions...' and enumerates the four categories plus why each matters and how answers map to plan_gadget. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning plan_gadget as the next step.

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 gives clear workflow guidance: 'Ask the human these, then call plan_gadget with `answers`. No input.' This tells the agent when to use the tool in a sequence, but it does not state when not to use it or compare against siblings like get_build_plan or assess_hackability.

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