alcove_knowledge_add_question

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects. The single sentence 'Add an OKF Question' gives no insights beyond the basic action, which is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely short (6 words) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices necessary detail. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity or completeness. A better description would expand on purpose and parameters without being verbose.

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 has 6 parameters (2 required) and a non-trivial domain (OKF questions), the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention return values despite having an output schema, nor does it explain the workspace or source_refs parameters. The agent lacks critical information to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (topic, question, tags, answer, workspace, source_refs). The agent must rely entirely on parameter names, which are insufficient. The description adds no value in understanding parameter roles or formats.

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 'Add an OKF Question' clearly identifies the verb 'Add' and the resource 'OKF Question'. However, 'OKF' is unexplained jargon, which may confuse an agent unfamiliar with the domain. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'alcove_knowledge_add_note' and 'alcove_knowledge_add_entity', but the lack of explanation for 'OKF' prevents a perfect score.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., alcove_knowledge_add_note, alcove_knowledge_add_entity). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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