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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the first question and session metadata, and that it can start or resume a session. However, it does not describe any side effects (e.g., session creation state), requirements like operator_id, or whether the operation is safe or mutating.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. It includes the layer list and a pointer to the complementary tool without excess. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with an output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the main purpose, layer choices, return value, and next step. The main gap is undocumented optional parameters (operator_id, resume_from), but the output schema reduces the need to describe return structure.

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 schema has 0% description coverage. The description lists the enum values for 'layer' but does not explain the meaning or format of 'operator_id' or 'resume_from'. The 'resume' concept is implied by the word 'resume' but never explicitly connected to the parameter.

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 tool's function: 'Start or resume a structured elicitation session for a specific knowledge layer.' It identifies the resource (knowledge layer) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming answer_elicitation as the submit step. The layer enumeration adds specificity.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (to start or resume an elicitation session) and explicitly directs users to answer_elicitation for submitting answers, which helps differentiate among siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other purposes.

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