interview_mock_evaluate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that evaluation is deterministic, lists the specific criteria checked (STAR, quantification, I/we ratio, duration at ~130 wpm), and states it returns a scored MockEval with feedback. This provides substantial transparency beyond the input schema.

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, front-loads the verb and resource, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 (MockEval), the description does not need to explain return values. It enumerates the checks performed, which is sufficient for a single-parameter tool. It could mention language expectations or edge cases, but overall it is complete enough for effective use.

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 has 100% coverage with parameter 'answer_text' described as 'The candidate's free-text answer.' The description adds that it is a mock interview answer and that checks are performed, but does not provide additional semantic or formatting details beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('mock interview answer'), and lists concrete checks (STAR structure, quantification, I/we ratio, duration). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling interview tools like interview_question_bank or interview_story_add.

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. For example, it doesn't indicate that this tool should be used after a candidate provides an answer, nor does it mention not to use it for generating questions or stories. The context of siblings (interview_question_bank, interview_story_add) implies distinct use cases, but the description lacks explicit direction.

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