Get the next planning interview questions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses workflow behavior (phase transition), presentation guidance (multiple-choice), and handling of special answers ('skip', 'use your judgment'). However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or describe the return format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: it gives workflow context, a clear purpose, user interaction instructions, and post-condition. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description thoroughly explains the tool's role in the workflow and how to handle responses, but it lacks details about the return value's structure (e.g., array of question objects, options format). Since there is no output schema, this is a notable gap. Still, the workflow context helps compensate.

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 one parameter, projectId, with no description (0% coverage). The description does not mention projectId at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the parameter name itself. Since the schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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?

Clearly states 'Returns the next batch of unanswered planning questions' – a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'Phase 2 of the App Factory workflow' provides context, and it is distinct from sibling tools like record_answer which saves replies.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use it ('Phase 2 of the App Factory workflow'), how to use the results ('Present them to the USER... then save each reply with record_answer'), and what happens afterward ('When no questions remain the project advances to the design phase'). This gives an agent a clear workflow sequence and alternatives.

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