ask_question

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It transparently states that asking a question logs an interaction and updates mastery records, and also mentions memory reads and concept identification. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication or error/return behavior, but the key mutating side effects are disclosed.

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 two focused sentences. The first gives the primary action, and the second compactly lists the system's internal steps. Every phrase earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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 tool is complex (memory reads, interaction logging, mastery updates) and has no output schema or annotations. The description covers the main behavior and side effects, but it does not specify return format, prerequisites, or validity conditions for the IDs, which would improve completeness for an agent.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It provides no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function ('Ask a question about a course topic') and enumerates its internal behaviors (reads memory, answers using course context, identifies relevant concepts, infers confusion, logs interaction, updates mastery), which differentiates it from siblings like explain_concept or get_concept by emphasizing the interactive and mastery-updating nature.

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 clear context: use this when a student asks a question about a course topic. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as explain_concept or get_concept, nor state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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