check_trivia_answer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the tool is stateless and compares two strings, but it does not describe the return value, matching semantics (e.g., case sensitivity, letter vs. full-text handling), or any side effects. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding how to interpret the result.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences deliver the core purpose and a key behavioral trait without wasting words. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, making it easy to scan and process.

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 tool is simple and the schema fully documents the parameters, so the invocation context is clear. However, because there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, a verdict string, or a personalized message). Its absence leaves a notable gap in understanding the complete behavior.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only minor context by calling correct_answer a 'token' and referring to player_answer as 'the player's response,' but it does not add substantive meaning beyond the schema.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Check a player's trivia answer against the correct answer.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like start_trivia_game and trivia_quiz by explicitly noting it is 'fully stateless,' indicating this is a pure answer-validation tool rather than a game-flow tool.

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 'Clara passes the correct answer token and the player's response' implies the core usage pattern: provide both the correct answer and the player's answer. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the parameters.

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