interview_persona

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 describes the action as asking a question, which implies a non-destructive read, but it fails to disclose potential side effects, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., audience existence), leaving behavioral ambiguity.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the word 'follow-up' may cause confusion without further context, slightly reducing clarity.

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 output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, it omits details about error cases, the meaning of 'follow-up', and the relationship to sibling tool 'get_audience', leaving some contextual gaps.

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%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are detailed (e.g., explaining 'n' range, persona_id usage). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 'ask', the resource 'persona(s)', and provides a helpful analogy ('on-demand focus group'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinct from siblings.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_agent_sample' or 'market_info'. The term 'follow-up question' implies a prior step but is not elaborated, leaving usage context vague.

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