aethis_next_question

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false; the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them — a stateful iterative loop keyed on accumulating answers, and the surfacing of author notes under a Notes block. No contradiction with the non-idempotent hint (each call reflects new state). It stops short of describing auth, error behavior, or the response shape.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and then the calling protocol; the Notes-block detail is placed last as secondary information. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries more burden but handles the key termination signal ('until decision is reached') and the Notes block. It still doesn't describe the response structure (question text, options, how a final decision is represented), which an agent driving the loop would benefit from knowing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by defining the semantics of field_values over time (empty dict for the first call, then collected answers) — information the schema's field description only partially conveys. ruleset_id is left to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get the optimal next question') and frames it within a conversational eligibility check, which separates it from decision/explanation siblings. However, it never names an alternative tool or explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like aethis_decide or aethis_explain, so sibling differentiation remains implicit.

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 clearly states the usage pattern: call with empty field_values for the first question, then accumulate answers and call again until a decision is reached. This is strong procedural context, but it offers no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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