get_interview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but no explicit statements about side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior are made. It adds no context beyond the purpose, which is insufficient for a tool that has no annotations to rely on.

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 (a single sentence), which is structurally clean, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks any structure to convey supplementary details or context. While brevity is a virtue here, the content is too sparse to earn a higher score.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what kind of detail is returned (e.g., room capacity, link, status) or what the response structure might be. The absence of an output schema places a burden on the description to at least hint at the return value, which it fails to do. It also lacks any mention of edge cases or prerequisites, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameter. It does not explicitly mention room_id or its meaning, though the purpose 'interview room detail' and the parameter name make it semi-obvious that room_id identifies the room. However, it doesn't clarify whether room_id refers to the interview ID or a separate room entity, and it offers no format or additional guidance. The description adds minimal value beyond the implicit 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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('interview room detail'), which conveys the basic action. However, 'room detail' is somewhat ambiguous and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_interview_analysis or get_interview_replay, which could also relate to interview details. A more precise term like 'interview room information' or a note about what 'detail' encompasses would improve 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for retrieving a specific room's details rather than listing interviews or accessing analysis. No context, exclusions, or alternative tool suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate among the many siblings.

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