answer_question

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

The description mentions that the answer is persisted and reflected in consistency checks, and that for SOFT_CONTRADICTION there is no automatic operation. However, it does not fully disclose behavioral traits such as authorization needs, rate limits, or what 'determine the corresponding build operation' entails. The annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, leaving the description to carry the burden, which it does inadequately.

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 concise with several sentences, each addressing a specific scenario. It front-loads the main action and then enumerates cases. The structure is logical, though the use of Japanese and technical terms may reduce readability for an English-language agent. Still, it is efficient without fluff.

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 complexity (handling multiple answer types with different effects) and the lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'build operation' means, what the return value is, or how the agent should interpret the result. The persistence and consistency implications are mentioned but not fully detailed.

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 provides only names and types (qid: integer, answer: string) with no descriptions. The description adds meaningful semantics for the 'answer' parameter by specifying possible values like 'identical' (for alias merge), 'src'/'dst' (for conflict resolution), and other values (for soft contradiction). However, the 'qid' parameter is not explained, leaving a gap.

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 states the tool answers a question and determines a build operation, but it is not explicit about what 'question' refers to. It details specific cases (ALIAS, MERGE_CONFLICT, SOFT_CONTRADICTION), which provide some clarity, but the overall purpose is somewhat vague without context from sibling tools like list_open_questions. The title is null, further reducing clarity.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. It explains what the tool does in different scenarios but does not help an agent decide when to invoke it over siblings like add_fact or set_constraint.

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