cassette_answer_question

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full responsibility. It describes two modes but does not explain behavioral details such as error handling, side effects, required permissions, or what happens when parameters are omitted. The notion of 'resume an interrupted job' is mentioned without clarifying the role of job_id or response fields.

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?

Description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices clarity. It is front-loaded with the main actions, yet it is too brief to convey necessary details about parameters and modes. It could be expanded without becoming verbose.

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 complexity (6 optional parameters, two modes) and the presence of an output schema (unmentioned), the description is insufficient. It does not explain how the output relates to the input, nor does it cover parameter interactions or behavior in failure cases.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the six parameters. It only casually mentions job_id and response, but does not explain context, question, asset_count, or instruction. With 0% coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use these parameters.

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?

Description clearly states two distinct actions: classify a question or resume an interrupted job. Verb 'classify' and 'resume' are specific, and the resource 'Cassette question' is identified. However, 'question mode' is somewhat vague, and the tool does not strongly differentiate from siblings beyond the context of Cassette jobs.

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?

Provides two usage scenarios (new classification or resumption), which gives context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cassette_run_job or cassette_review_completion, and no 'when not to use' or prerequisites are mentioned.

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