Source-backed Learning Q&A

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'retrieve' aligns with that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral information such as rate limits, configuration assumptions, or output characteristics beyond the annotations. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides minimal extra value.

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 with no filler, directly stating the core purpose. It is front-loaded and efficiently sized, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

The tool has four parameters and no output schema, and the description only covers the basic purpose. It fails to explain return values, parameter semantics, or any operational context needed for correct invocation, making it incomplete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 are absent for all four parameters (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It implicitly references the 'question' parameter via 'learning question' but does not explain the meaning or usage of 'top', 'depth', or 'candidates'. This leaves agents without enough information to set optional parameters correctly.

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 tool's purpose: to retrieve evidence for answering learning questions from a configured knowledge base. It uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('evidence'), and the title 'Source-backed Learning Q&A' reinforces the educational Q&A focus. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like rag_query, so it misses a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rag_query or concept_compare. It only describes the action without any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context, making it insufficient for selecting the right tool among siblings.

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