Interview the user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses two execution modes, that the elicit path is blocking, and that the chat path returns payload the agent must relay and then submit back. It omits state side effects (whether an interview record/draft is created or how resume is detected), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the conditional execution paths, then the adaptivity note; nothing is redundant. The parenthetical example list (cloud, throughput, availability, compliance, …) is mildly noisy but justifies the tool's value.

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 an interactive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the two execution paths and the hand-off to archforge_submit_answers cover the main things an agent must know. Gaps around resume semantics and prerequisite state keep it at 4 rather than 5.

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 coverage is 50%: mode has an enum with a description, while projectId is undocumented in both schema and description. The description implies the elicit-vs-chat distinction that mode controls ("If the IDE supports popup forms"), but never maps mode values to behavior or explains what projectId must reference, so it adds only marginal meaning.

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?

"Run or resume the requirements interview" gives a specific verb plus resource and names archforge_submit_answers as the follow-on, so it is distinguishable from that sibling. It does not clarify its relationship to archforge_start_project (whether a project must exist first), leaving one adjacency to inference.

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 clearly branches usage: when MCP elicitation is available the questions arrive as native forms and the call blocks until answered; otherwise the agent must show the returned chat questionnaire and submit replies via archforge_submit_answers. That is actionable conditional guidance, though it never states the prerequisite project state or when to prefer this over archforge_status.

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