generate_interview_questions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether questions are saved, if the operation is idempotent, or any side effects. The description is purely a statement of function without behavioral context.

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 fluff, but it is arguably too minimal. While concise, it lacks structure (e.g., no breakdown of inputs or outputs). It conveys the core action but sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 has no output schema and only three parameters, the description should explain what the generated output looks like (e.g., format, number of questions). It omits this entirely, leaving the agent uninformed about the return value and overall behavior.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning for parameters beyond their schema definitions (e.g., what 'tailored' means in terms of focus areas or difficulty). It does not enhance understanding of parameter usage.

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 specifies the verb 'generate' and the resource 'tailored interview questions for Jake Gaylor', making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'assess_role_fit', which could overlap in use cases. The standalone purpose is strong but lacks sibling distinction.

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 (e.g., assess_role_fit, get_resume_text). There are no hints about prerequisites, best practices, or when not to invoke. This forces the agent to guess context.

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