Answer a question with citations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavior: refusal when retrieval confidence is low. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors like rate limits or permission requirements.

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, using one sentence to convey the core functionality and a key behavior. It is front-loaded but could be better structured with separate sentences for different aspects.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: retrieval, synthesis, citations, and refusal. It lacks details on the output format or citation style, but it is reasonably complete.

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 already fully describes the single required parameter 'question' (type, minLength, description). The description does not add additional semantic meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 specifies the action ('answers'), the resource ('question with citations'), and how it works ('retrieves relevant chunks, synthesizes a grounded answer with citations'). It also alludes to a behavior that distinguishes it from siblings like ingest_doc and search_docs.

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 implies usage for answering questions from a corpus, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (search_docs for searching, ingest_doc for ingestion). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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