repeat_question

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the action ('deliver') and permission context, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it is strictly read-only or whether it changes any state). This is a minor gap for a simple repeat action, but still present.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately useful context. Every word earns its place, with no wasted or redundant 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with a clear purpose, the description is complete. It says what the tool does and who is allowed to use it. The existence of an output schema is not described, but the description does not need to explain return values for a simple question-repeat action.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level details, but none are needed since there are no parameters to explain.

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: 'Deliver the current question again.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like next_question, which advances rather than repeats.

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 phrase 'Candidates are allowed to ask' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate—when a candidate requests repetition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for such a simple tool.

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