start_interview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a prompt, implying a read-like operation, but does not disclose if it modifies any state (e.g., creating a session). For a tool that 'begins' something, behavioral impact is relevant but unaddressed.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence clearly states the action and outcome. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (implied by 'has output schema: true'), the description sufficiently covers purpose, return value, and usage context. No additional information is needed for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter explanation is needed. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate given the empty schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 tool name 'start_interview' clearly indicates the action. The description specifies 'Begin the reading goal interview' and describes the return value as 'the interview prompt to guide the conversation'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'start_reflection' and others by focusing on the initial interview setup.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when the user says "interview me" or "set up my profile"'. This provides clear trigger phrases. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the specificity is sufficient for a single-purpose tool.

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