add_question

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only implies mutation ('adds') but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, return value, or state changes. No mention of whether adding duplicates is allowed or what context means.

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?

Extremely short, but under-specified. A single sentence lacks crucial details; it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. Could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations), the description is borderline adequate. However, it does not mention output schema (which exists) or clarify how the added question interacts with other tools like 'resolve_question'. Missing behavioral context lowers completeness.

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 0%, so description must explain the 'question' parameter. It does not specify format, length constraints, examples, or expected content (e.g., natural language vs structured). The word 'question' is reused without added meaning.

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 action ('adds') and the resource ('an unresolved open question to the context'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'resolve_question' by specifying 'unresolved'. However, 'context' is vague and could be more specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'resolve_question' or 'log_decision'. There is no mention of prerequisites, order of operations, or typical scenarios.

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