answer_work_report_question

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

Annotations indicate it's a write operation but not destructive. The description adds the key behavior of mirroring the answer as a comment, which is not conveyed by annotations alone. However, other potential behaviors (e.g., permissions, side effects) are not disclosed.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and a notable side effect. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Answer' and maintains brevity without sacrificing essential purpose.

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 presence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description lacks sufficient context. It does not clarify what a work_report question is, how to obtain card_id or question_id, or any constraints. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but other context is missing.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not compensate by explaining any parameters (card_id, question_id, answer). The agent must infer meaning solely from parameter names.

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 function: answering a work_report question and mirroring the answer as a normal comment. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'record_work_report' and 'add_comment' by combining both actions.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, non-usage conditions, or related tools.

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