generate_interview_questions

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

No annotations are provided, so description fully bears responsibility. It only states that it generates questions but does not disclose side effects, persistence, rate limits, or how personalization is implemented. Minimal behavioral information.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words but also lacks necessary detail. Could be more structured and informative without being bloated.

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 moderate complexity (2 params) and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not address usage context, prerequisites, or behavior beyond basic generation. Output schema existence reduces need for return explanation, but still incomplete.

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 0%, but description adds meaning by specifying types (technical, behavioral, design) and count range (1-10). However, it does not explain what focus_areas are or how they influence output. Adds some value but incomplete.

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 verb 'generate' and the resource 'interview questions', specifying types (technical, behavioral, design) and range (1-10). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'evaluate_answer' or 'get_job_description'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use. Sibling tools provide context but description itself lacks any usage instruction.

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