interview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates an interview record file and only supports feature type. It does not elaborate on side effects, auth needs, or other behavioral traits, but the basic non-destructive, file-generating behavior is implied.

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, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey when to use it, what it does, and its output. Every sentence is essential and 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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role in the workflow. It mentions the output for start_feature/add_feature and the feature-only restriction. However, it does not explicitly describe the interactive flow of receiving questions and submitting answers, which is a minor gap.

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 already covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no significant semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose as a requirement interview tool to clarify unclear requirements through structured questioning. It explicitly mentions its role in generating record files for subsequent tools (start_feature/add_feature), distinguishing it from siblings like start_feature itself.

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 explicitly states when to use: when user requirements are unclear. It also notes the limitation that it only supports feature type. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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