askAboutBijon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool is a 'search tool' but does not mention whether it is read-only (likely), any authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if no results are found. The return format is unspecified (no output schema). This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose. Every word is informative, and there is no redundant or irrelevant content. It achieves maximum information density.

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 nested objects), the description is minimally viable. It explains the purpose and provides query examples. However, the lack of output schema means the agent does not know the return format (e.g., text, list, or structured answer). Additional context about expected output would improve 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?

The schema coverage is 100% with a single 'query' parameter described. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing concrete examples ('tell me about his intern experience at FAITE', 'what are his roles in Rotaract?'), which help the agent craft effective queries. While not exhaustive, this surpasses the baseline expectation for high schema 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 clearly states the tool is a 'free-text Q&A search tool' for asking questions about Bijon's background, projects, work experience, or achievements. It uses specific verbs ('Ask questions or search keywords') and identifies the resource (Bijon). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getProfile or getProjects, which are structured retrievers for specific categories.

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 implies that this tool is for open-ended questions spanning multiple domains, contrasting with sibling tools that fetch specific data. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use getProjects for a structured list'). The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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