gui_show_question

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 only states 'show' without explaining side effects, error conditions (e.g., if no card is shown), or whether it requires review mode. The output schema exists but is not used in description.

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, concise sentence. However, it could be slightly expanded to include essential behavioral context without significant bloat. It is front-loaded and efficient but not fully informative.

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 simplicity (no params, UI action), the description omits important context such as prerequisites (must be in review mode), return value (likely nothing), and potential errors. The output schema exists but is not referenced to explain return values.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. With no params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description does not miss anything.

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 shows the question side of the current reviewer card. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('question side'), and implicitly distinguishes itself from its sibling 'gui_show_answer' which shows the answer side.

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 usage during card review, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gui_show_answer or gui_current_card. No when-not-to or prerequisite context is given.

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