understand_question

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 a structured prompt guiding model behavior, but does not specify side effects, safety, or performance characteristics. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 structured with Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. However, the Args section repeats parameter names and is slightly verbose; a more streamlined version could remove redundant phrasing.

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 the existence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits return details. It covers the three parameters and their roles. For a tool with moderate complexity (3 params, no enums), this is sufficient.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter's purpose ('raw user ask', 'background knowledge', 'explicit limits'). This adds value beyond the bare schema, though it could be more precise about allowed formats.

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 produces a 'protocol shell' to decompose a user question, with a specific focus on intent restatement and constraint surfacing. While it differentiates from siblings like 'get_protocol_shell' by emphasizing decomposition, the phrase 'produce a protocol shell' could be confused with that sibling.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., analyze_task_complexity). The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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