generate_questions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core transformation and does not mention potential variability in generated questions, any prerequisites for passage content, or whether the operation has side effects. The generative nature is implied but not elaborated.

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, front-loaded sentence that precisely conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with 100% parameter schema coverage and an output schema, the concise description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks usage guidance, but the core functionality is clear.

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% with each parameter (passage, count, question_type) documented. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema sufficiently describes parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Generate') with a clear resource ('a passage') and a specific output type ('IELTS-style practice questions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_text or extract_vocabulary. It succinctly states what the tool does.

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 implies usage (when a passage needs IELTS practice questions) but provides no explicit context, alternatives, or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools like analyze_text or extract_vocabulary are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferred.

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