list_interviews_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Return'), but does not confirm safety, authentication needs, or any side effects. The brevity leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words. Perfectly concise.

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 simple, zero-parameter list tool, the description is largely complete: it specifies the entity ('interview prep sessions') and a filter ('active'). The output schema is provided separately, so the description does not need to detail return structure. Minor gap: it could mention the output type (e.g., list).

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. According to the guidelines, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not add parameter details, but that is not needed. Score is appropriate.

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 core function: 'Return all active interview prep sessions.' It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('active interview prep sessions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'start_interview_prep_tool' or 'get_practice_history_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 usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The single sentence only states what it does.

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