chap.whisper.answer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates a state-changing action ('answer') but does not mention permissions, irrevocability, side effects, or what a successful response looks like. The only behavioral nuance it adds is the option-naming rule, which is largely redundant with the schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the conditional constraint follows logically. Every word earns its place.

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?

The schema is rich, covering all parameter semantics and two common refusal conditions. However, the description itself is minimal and does not address return values or postconditions, and there are no annotations to fill that gap. For a state-changing tool, this leaves some ambiguity, though the schema carries enough weight to keep it adequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a slight reinforcement that 'the answer must name one of them' when options exist, echoing the schema's 'answer_option' requirement. It does not introduce new parameter details beyond what the schema already 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Answer an open whisper.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from the sibling tool chap.whisper.ask, which would be for creating a whisper. The added constraint about naming one option when the question carried options further sharpens the purpose.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: when an open whisper needs an answer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is straightforward and the 'open whisper' phrasing implies it should not be used for already-answered or expired whispers, which are also covered by error codes in the schema.

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