start_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the briefing includes only topics of clarifying information, 'never the facts themselves', which is a crucial behavioral limitation. It also states that it opens the interview room in the browser, providing observable side effects. It lacks detail on potential resets or state changes, but the key disclosure is valuable.

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 three sentences long, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds critical information (what it does, what it returns, and what to tell the candidate). No filler or redundant content is present.

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 the tool's function, return value structure, and a notable constraint (not revealing facts). It also provides practical guidance for the agent. With an output schema present and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description does not need to explain return formats or parameter syntax. It is sufficiently complete for a starting tool, though it could mention behavior if the room is already open.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions the briefing content, which relates to output, not parameters. Thus, it meets the baseline without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 'Begin a full case interview' and 'Opens the interview room in the browser', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like start_drill by specifying a full case interview and returning a briefing, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Begin a full case interview') and gives actionable post-call instructions ('Tell the candidate the room is open and confirm they can hear you before starting'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the guidance is strong enough to be above the vague category.

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