trivia_quiz

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the question comes from 'random Memory Alpha facts', but does not explain output format (e.g., multiple choice, with answer), potential non-determinism, or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect from the tool.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 with one optional parameter, but there is no output schema. The description says it generates a trivia question but doesn't specify whether the answer is included, whether choices are provided, or any other return details. This is a gap given the context, but the tool is simple enough that the description is minimally viable.

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% because the only parameter 'difficulty' has a description and enum values. The description text adds no additional meaning about how difficulty affects the generated question, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Generate' and identifies the resource as 'a Star Trek trivia question', which clearly states the tool's action. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like start_trivia_game and check_trivia_answer by focusing on a single question generated from Memory Alpha facts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as start_trivia_game or who_said_it. It doesn't mention when a standalone question is appropriate or when another tool would be better, leaving usage context entirely to the agent.

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