Interview Agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, non-mutating profile. The description adds valuable context that the agent's responses are based on 'its personality, memories, and actions during the simulation,' giving the caller expectations about the content and grounding of responses. No contradiction with annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the core action and then add relevant behavioral context. There is no wasted wording or redundancy.

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, full schema coverage, and annotations for read-only and open-world behavior, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and what influences the agent's responses, without needing to detail return values or error cases beyond what annotations and schema imply.

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?

All three parameters (simulation_id, agent_name, message) are fully described in the input schema, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, which corresponds to the baseline score for full schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Interview (chat with) a specific simulated agent.' The verb 'interview' and resource 'specific simulated agent' distinguish it from batch/all siblings like interview_batch and interview_all.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for chatting with a single, specific agent, implying it should be used when an individual agent's perspective is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions like 'use interview_batch for multiple agents,' so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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