simulation_interview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool operates on a completed run (read-only implication) but does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as state changes, permissions, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loading the core action and resource. It is efficient but could benefit from slightly more detail about the interview process (e.g., that it is async or returns a message).

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 (3 required params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a key prerequisite (completed run), but lacks details on return value or conversational nature, which may be inferred but not explicit.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (runId, agentId, prompt). The description adds context about 'simulated product stakeholder' but does not enhance understanding of parameter semantics beyond 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 uses the specific verb 'Interview' and identifies the resource as 'simulated product stakeholder,' clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like simulation_run, simulation_transcript, or simulation_compare.

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 mentions 'from a completed local or model-swarm run,' which implies a prerequisite but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives. No guidance on when not to use or which sibling to prefer in other cases.

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