answer_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that this prepares a query and that execution is separate, but it does not reveal side effects, return value characteristics, permissions, or whether the operation is safe/read-only. The minimal disclosure leaves the agent guessing about the tool's actual effect.

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 short sentence, which is concise in length but severely under-specifies the tool. Conciseness is not about being minimal; it is about being appropriately sized. Here, the description is too brief to be helpful, lacking necessary details about purpose, usage, and parameters.

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 three parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to explain what 'prepare' produces, what the output schema represents, or how to set the parameters. An agent would be unable to call this tool correctly based solely on the description.

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 explain parameter meaning. It does not mention prompt, quality, or reasoning_effort at all. The description adds no semantic value to the parameters, and an agent cannot infer what each parameter controls from the text.

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 states a verb ('prepare') and a resource ('a routed query'), so it conveys a general action. However, it is vague about what 'prepare' entails and does not differentiate from sibling tools like prepare_task or route_task, which likely perform similar preparation steps. The clarity is adequate but not specific enough to distinguish from alternatives.

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 mentions that execution requires run_prepared_task, implying a sequence, but it gives no guidance on when to choose answer_query over prepare_task or route_task. There are no explicit conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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