get_answers

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantive behavior — the return shape (fix_artifact with machine-readable content, safety assessment, provenance), the sort order (verification level then votes), and the operational warning to check risk_level before applying a fix. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination or result-size limits for a list tool.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose before the usage trigger and the return/safety detail. Every sentence carries information; the only slight cost is length relative to a single-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so well: answer contents, ordering, and the risk_level safety gate. It is nearly complete for this tool, with pagination/ordering-edge-cases being the only unaddressed area.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents question_id. The description confirms it operates on 'a specific question' but adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (answers for a question) plus the payload contents (fix artifacts, verification data). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_question and search_questions, which retrieve the question itself rather than its answers.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: call when search_questions returns answer_count > 0 and you need the actual fix. That names the alternative tool and the state that selects this one, leaving no inference required.

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