interview_debrief

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only says 'generate a template', omitting details like whether it fills data dynamically, requires prior interview data, or produces a blank form. The agent cannot anticipate side effects or dependencies.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification; a bit more context would be beneficial 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 (2 params, output schema present), the description is functionally complete for generating a template. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., does it require interview data, is it localized per lang?). With no annotations, the agent may still have questions.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it does not explain the role's format or what 'lang' affects). With high coverage, no penalty, but no extra credit.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'post-interview debrief Markdown template', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like interview_company_brief or interview_mock_evaluate.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context (e.g., after an interview, requiring interview notes). The agent receives no help in deciding when to invoke it.

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