get_research_tool

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

No annotations are provided. The description states the output is 'grouped by kind' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as idempotency, order, error handling, or prerequisites. The presence of an output schema suggests more detail, but the description itself does not elaborate.

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 directly conveys the tool's purpose without any superfluous words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is mostly adequate. It covers the core functionality, though it lacks details on error conditions and prerequisites. For a retrieval tool, this is sufficient but not fully comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only explains that 'interview_id' identifies the interview, which is implicit. It does not add constraints like valid range or existence checks, so it adds minimal value 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 clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'research notes for an interview', with the additional detail 'grouped by kind'. This effectively differentiates it from siblings like save_research_note_tool and list_interviews_tool.

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 implies it is for retrieving notes for a specific interview, but there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tool to use instead.

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