Submit an interview answer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it does a solid job: it discloses the primary side effect (recording the answer) and the state transition (next question or scoping stage). It does not cover edge behaviors like overwriting previous answers, idempotency, or validation failures, so it stops short of a 5.

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 sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the consequence is stated, and the terminal transition is included. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-step stateful tool with no output schema, the description covers the input action, the immediate next step, and the terminal condition. It omits error/validation behaviors and idempotency semantics, but those are secondary for a happy-path interview flow.

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 is 67%, with answer and question_id already described. The description adds the 'current interview question' framing to question_id but does not elaborate on session_id or add syntax/format details beyond the schema, landing at the baseline.

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 names a specific verb, 'Record', and the resource, 'the human's answer to the current interview question'. It also defines the immediate result (getting the next question) and the terminal outcome (moving to scoping), which clearly distinguishes this from siblings like start_session or evaluate_project_scope.

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 situates the tool in the interview phase ('current interview question') and explains the transition to the scoping stage once all questions are answered. This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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