fmod_system_question

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'blocking' and return type, but lacks details on error handling, cancellation behavior, or input validation beyond the schema types.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action, return type, and blocking nature. No unnecessary words.

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's simplicity (yes/no prompt, boolean output), the description covers the essential behavioral and output aspects. Without an output schema, it still specifies the return value. Minor gaps in parameter explanation are the only shortcoming.

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%, yet the description does not explain the 'msg' parameter beyond 'given message'. It adds no semantic value over the schema, leaving the agent uncertain about expected message content or format.

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 clearly states that the tool prompts for a yes/no response and returns a boolean. It includes 'blocking' and a method reference, distinguishing it from siblings like fmod_system_getText which get arbitrary text input.

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 usage for yes/no prompts and notes blocking behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for a simple prompt tool.

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