vibo_list_section_questions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying the output contents: question types, options, answered state, current answer, and progress. It does not discuss ordering or pagination, but this is a simple read/list operation and the described output is sufficient.

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 filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, the return contents are compactly enumerated, and the follow-up tool reference earns its place by making the workflow actionable.

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 low complexity (2 required parameters), no output schema, and readOnly annotation, the description fully covers what the tool returns and how the result should be used next. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and continue with vibo_answer_question.

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 100% for the two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that sectionId comes from vibo_list_sections, which gives the agent provenance information beyond the schema's bare 'Section id' description.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the DJ's planning questions for a section'), and enriches it with the exact content returned: question type, options, answered status, current answer, and progress. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like vibo_list_sections and vibo_answer_question.

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 gives clear operational context by stating that sectionId comes from vibo_list_sections and explicitly instructs to use the question _id (and option _ids) with vibo_answer_question. It does not list exclusions or alternative tools, but the downstream workflow is clear enough for an agent to decide when to call this tool.

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