Question templates by genre (not in this build)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that only one genre exists, that the genre argument is meaningless, and that output is identical for any input. It omits nothing critical for a no-op stub, though it doesn't say whether the call succeeds or errors.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the key fact ('Cut-list stub') so the agent learns the tool is non-functional immediately. No filler, though 'cut-list' is internal jargon that carries little meaning to an outside caller.

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 stub with one ignored parameter, no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: it is a stub, input is irrelevant, and the real question source is brief. Return-value detail is unnecessary since output is constant.

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% and the schema itself already states the 'genre' param is ignored and exists only for shape stability. The description's 'any genre passed here gets the same answer' reinforces that but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 states plainly that this is a cut-list stub, identifies the single supported genre (customer case study), and says where the real questions come from (the brief tool). An agent knows this tool returns a fixed answer rather than genre-specific templates, though the name 'question_templates' implies a generality the description correctly denies.

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?

It points at the 'brief tool's angle-driven plan' as the real source of questions, which nudges the agent toward brief, but it never explicitly says 'use brief instead of this tool.' Usage is implied rather than prescribed, and there is no statement of when this tool should ever be called (if at all).

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