open_question_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, permissions, or error conditions. It only mentions an 'impact' field with allowed values, but does not clarify the tool's behavior, such as whether it writes to a persistent store or triggers notifications.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence with no redundant words. It is well-structured, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail; still, as a pure measure of conciseness, it is effective.

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's complexity (9 parameters, 6 required) and the lack of schema descriptions, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of an open question, how to fill the parameters, or what the output might look like, leaving many aspects ambiguous.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 9 parameters. Terms like 'statement', 'blocking', and 'possible_answers' are left undefined, and the note about 'impact' is ambiguous without a parameter reference.

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 action ('Create') and the object ('open question memory'), which distinguishes it from other memory creation tools. However, it does not elaborate on what an 'open question' specifically entails beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gotcha_create or assumption_create. The description does not mention scenarios or conditions that would make an open question the appropriate choice.

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