ro_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is a check (non-mutating) and that the main loop is stopped while a prompt is pending, which is useful context. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., boolean, status object) or any error conditions, leaving the agent to guess what the tool actually returns. Given the absence of an output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 zero waste. The first sentence states the exact purpose, and the second provides essential operational context (timeout and resolution). It is front-loaded with the most important information and does not repeat schema or annotations. 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, behavioral implications, and relation to siblings. However, it omits the return value specification entirely; an agent cannot know whether the tool returns a boolean, a status string, or something else. This is a critical missing piece for a tool that is purely a check, especially without an output schema to fill the gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description correctly makes no mention of parameters, and with no params to explain, there's nothing to add beyond the schema. The baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 ('Check whether') and a specific resource ('OpenKore is blocked on an interactive question'), with concrete examples of the question types (character creation, selection, password retry). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like ro_answer (which resolves the prompt) and ro_state (likely a global state check), so an agent can immediately understand its unique role.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (to check for a pending prompt) and explains the consequence of a pending prompt: 'every other tool will time out until it is answered with ro_answer.' This implicitly instructs the agent to call this tool first to avoid timeouts, and it names the alternative (ro_answer) as the resolution path. No ambiguity remains about timing or alternatives.

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