cassette_answer_question

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only hints at two modes without explaining side effects, validation requirements, state changes, or prerequisites. 'Validated job_id' implies a check but does not describe what validation means or what happens with invalid input. The description does not disclose whether the tool mutates state, requires authentication, or returns job progress.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words, but it is not well-structured because it awkwardly combines two potentially distinct operations. The phrase 'using question mode' is jargon and does not aid clarity. It is concise but at the expense of necessary explanation.

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?

For a tool with six optional parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, the description provides only minimal context about question mode and job resumption. An output schema exists, so return values are not the main gap, but the missing explanations for context, asset_count, and instruction make the definition incomplete. An agent cannot confidently determine required inputs or correct mode selection from this description alone.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the six parameters, but it only alludes to 'question', 'job_id', and 'response'. Parameters like 'context', 'asset_count', and 'instruction' are completely unmentioned, leaving their roles unclear. The phrase 'validated job_id and response fields' adds some meaning, but it is insufficient for an agent to construct a correct call.

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 verb ('Classify') and a resource ('Cassette question'), but 'question mode' is vague and unexplained, making the primary purpose ambiguous. It also introduces a secondary 'resume an interrupted job' use case without clarifying how it relates to the tool's main function. The description does not clearly differentiate this tool from siblings like cassette_run_job or cassette_job_status.

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 two usage contexts: classifying a question and resuming an interrupted job with a validated job_id and response. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as cassette_run_job or cassette_job_status. There are no exclusion criteria or conditional instructions beyond the vague phrase 'using question mode.'

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