interview

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

The description claims the tool generates interview record files (side effects), but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which imply no state changes. This is a direct contradiction, severely undermining transparency. Without annotations, the description itself would provide some behavioral context, but the contradiction makes it misleading.

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 that packs essential information: use case, function, output, and type constraint. It is concise but could be better structured (e.g., separate sentences for clarity). Still, it efficiently conveys key points.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter ('answers') and no output schema. The description fails to explain the structure of the interview answers or the format of the generated record file. It mentions the output is used by other tools but lacks details needed for correct invocation and understanding the tool's full 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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions for 'answers', 'description', and 'feature_name'. It mentions that 'answers' are for submitting results and 'description' starts the interview, but this is already captured in the schema.

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: clarify requirements through structured questions when they are unclear. It specifies that it generates interview record files for subsequent tools and only supports 'feature' type. While it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'ask_user', the purpose is well-defined.

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 and need clarification. It also mentions the output is used by start_feature/add_feature, indicating the tool's place in the workflow. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative tools.

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