vibo_list_section_questions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate read-only behavior. It adds value by detailing what information is returned (e.g., progress, answer status). There is no contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase provides useful information. No wasted words.

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 absence of an output schema, the description fully paints the picture of what the tool returns (question id, type, options, answered status, answer, progress). It also sets up the next step using vibo_answer_question, making the tool's role in the workflow 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 descriptions already cover both parameters (eventId, sectionId) fully. The description adds contextual guidance by noting sectionId comes from vibo_list_sections, aiding agent decision-making. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 clearly states it lists DJ's planning questions for a section, specifying the returned fields (type, options, answered status, answer, progress). It distinguishes itself from the sibling vibo_answer_question, which is explicitly mentioned for handling answers.

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 guides the agent to use this tool to retrieve questions and then use vibo_answer_question for answering. It implicitly suggests when to use it (when needing to view questions and their details) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other list tools. The context is clear enough.

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