get_questionnaire_response

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'returns a starting-template response' but does not clarify if the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or any side effects. The nature of the response (e.g., format, size) is also not described, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence followed by a list of topics, efficiently conveying purpose without extraneous information. The list is slightly redundant given the schema, but it aids quick scanning. It could be more concise by omitting the list, but it remains front-loaded and clear.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It defines the tool's function and the parameter's valid values. However, it lacks elaboration on what a 'starting-template response' entails (e.g., format, length) and doesn't mention that the response is for a questionnaire (though implied by the tool name). Overall adequate but not rich.

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?

The input schema fully covers the parameter with an enum, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds marginal value by listing the enum values and labeling them as security questionnaire topics. However, it does not explain the meaning or usage of each topic beyond the enum names, so the added semantic value is limited.

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 explicitly states the tool returns a starting-template response for a common security questionnaire question, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('starting-template response'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_rfp_response_template (RFP) and get_competitive_battlecard (competitive analysis) by focusing on security questionnaire responses.

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 implies when to use (when a template for listed topics is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Siblings like get_full_pack or list_all_topics could be relevant but are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the topic list.

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