Adicionar pergunta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It discloses the quiz mode requirement for points and the positional behavior via 'index'. However, it does not mention side effects like index shifting of existing questions, permissions, or error behavior, which are relevant for a mutation tool.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main action and then provide necessary context (types and quiz mode caveat). Every sentence serves a purpose with 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 tool has 17 parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively short but leverages rich per-parameter schema descriptions. It provides critical context about quiz mode and positioning, which complements the schema. It could mention return values or prerequisites like form existence, but the schema covers parameter details.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds the quiz mode prerequisite for points, but this is already noted in the schema ('exige modo quiz ativo'). Thus, the description adds minimal semantic value 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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Acrescenta uma pergunta a um formulário' (adds a question to a form). It further clarifies positioning ('no final, ou na posição indicada por index') and enumerates question types, effectively distinguishing this from siblings like update_question, delete_question, and move_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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: adding a question at the end or at a specific index, and it gives a specific prerequisite ('use set_quiz antes') for using points. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools by name.

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