ro_answer

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden. It states the action (writing a line to stdin), which is a clear side effect. However, it does not disclose what happens if no question is pending (e.g., error, block, or queue), whether the operation is reversible, or any other consequences. The description discloses the mechanism but lacks detail on potential failure modes or post-conditions.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and mechanism. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what to do and how. The only gap is that it does not reference the ro_prompt sibling or mention that a question must be pending first, which would help avoid misuse. However, given the low complexity, it is adequately complete for the tool's purpose.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, as the 'answer' parameter includes a description ('The literal line to send, e.g. '0'.)'. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate—the schema handles parameter documentation fully.

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 action: 'Answer OpenKore's pending interactive question' with the specific mechanism 'by writing a line to its stdin.' It uses a precise verb (answer), a resource (the pending question), and distinguishes it from siblings like ro_prompt (which likely retrieves the prompt) and ro_command (general commands). The purpose is unambiguous.

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: it is for answering a pending interactive question. It implies the tool should be used when such a question exists, differentiating it from tools like ro_prompt or ro_command. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. It gives enough context for an agent to infer the appropriate scenario, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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