prepare_qa_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the main behavior (accessing a page, collecting DOM) and notes a dependency. However, it does not state potential side effects (e.g., whether it modifies item status), authorization requirements, or long-running behavior, leaving uncertainty about operational impact.

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?

Two concise sentences with clear structure. The first states the action, the second explains return value and a key prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action, return purpose, and a critical precondition. It could be more complete by specifying what the returned data includes, but it is adequate for an agent to decide usage.

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 for the single parameter is 100% with a clear description ('Item ID to prepare'). The description itself does not add parameter information, but the schema suffices, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs ('accesses target page', 'collects DOM structure') and names the resource ('specific item'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_qa_items or save_qa_script by stating its role in script generation data collection.

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 it is used before script generation and explicitly states a prerequisite (preceding scripts must be ready for intermediate items). However, it does not name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, so it falls short of 'explicit alternatives' level.

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