zelinqa_next_question

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses two genuinely non-obvious behaviors: a missing reply returns the pending question without consuming a turn, and an outcome alone is refused except for 'refused' or 'asked_no_answer'. It does not explain permissions, error behavior, or how the several text fields interact.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the no-reply branch, then the validation rules. No filler, though the final sentence is dense enough to require a second read.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the core reply semantics are covered. However, for a 7-parameter tool with 14% schema coverage and no annotations, several parameters and the required-input combinations per question type remain undocumented.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It explains choice_labels (exact displayed labels), the outcome enum restrictions, and that open questions take the person's words, but leaves assistant_text, candidate_rank, and the free_text/user_text distinction unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: report the person's reply to the pending question and get the next one. Clearly implies a conversational loop, distinct from siblings like zelinqa_start or zelinqa_status, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete conditional usage: supply a reply to advance, or omit it to re-fetch the pending question without consuming a turn. Also states the constraint to use exact displayed choice labels and never invent an outcome. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or sibling routing, but the operating conditions are clear.

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