Start an assessment in chat

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces that with "Read-only; costs 1 unit." It also reveals meaningful behavioral expectations: ask questions one at a time, word for word, accept only A or B, and require explicit consent for personal frameworks. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds a distinct piece of needed information. It covers the core behavior, the no-framework variant, a consent prerequisite, and the cost/safety profile without redundant filler.

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 one optional parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly: question delivery style, answer constraints, the omitted-parameter behavior, consent requirements, and cost. No critical operational gap remains.

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 input schema already fully documents the optional framework parameter with examples and the omit behavior. The description adds semantic value by naming personal framework examples and reaffirming the no-framework listing behavior, which helps the agent understand the parameter's practical contract. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description's additional examples and constraints merit a score above baseline.

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 and resource: "Get the questions for one EQIQs framework" so the assessment can be taken in chat. It also distinguishes its no-framework behavior (listing remaining frameworks) from the act of submitting answers, which is clearly a different sibling tool. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 gives explicit calling context: omit the framework to list incomplete assessments, and obtain explicit consent for personal frameworks such as attachment or love language. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the provided guidance is clear and useful for correct invocation.

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