get_next_question_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the selection policy (overdue spaced-repetition reviews served first, alternating with new questions), the exact contents of the returned brief, and a behavioral constraint about not revealing the answer. It does not say what happens when nothing is due or whether the call is purely read-only, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the workflow anchor 'ASK step 1' and then dense, purposeful sentences with no filler. The telegraphic style ('question TYPE', 'REQUIRED answer position') is slightly compressed but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating what the brief contains, plus ordering behavior and the downstream step. Remaining gaps are the empty-queue case and the semantics of user_id/session_id, which are minor for a read-style brief generator.

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. It explains two of four parameters well ('topic = user asked for one topic now', 'from_material = ground the question in the user's own material'), but user_id and session_id are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and result: it returns the brief telling the agent exactly what question to write, and enumerates the payload (topic, subtopic, level, question TYPE, instructions, answer position, pitfalls). It is clearly part of an 'ASK' workflow but never states how it differs from close siblings like get_pending_question or get_due_reviews, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 explicit workflow placement ('ASK step 1'), a mandatory follow-up ('Write ONE question, then store it with save_question'), and a hard constraint ('Never reveal the answer'). What's missing is an explicit when-not case or a direct comparison to get_pending_question/get_due_reviews for agents that might reach for those instead.

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