answer_question

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: RAG-based synthesis from multiple sources, and returns answer text with source references and confidence score. It sufficiently explains what the tool does, though it could mention potential limitations like accuracy.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff; first sentence states purpose and method, second covers output. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 description covers purpose, method, and output details (answer text, source references, confidence score). No output schema is present, but the description compensates. Adequate for a QA tool with 3 well-documented parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about using RAG, synthesizing from multiple sources, and returning citations/confidence, which enriches understanding beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 'Answer questions about C64 documentation using RAG', specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by mentioning RAG and synthesis from multiple sources with citations.

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 the tool is for answering questions with citations, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like search_docs or semantic_search, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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