session_ask_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, and it does so strongly. It reveals the non-blocking nature ('Returns immediately'), the required polling follow-up, the on-page badge UI, and the need to relay the instruction in the reply. These are behaviors not inferable from the schema and essential for correct usage.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose and UI, the second conveys async behavior and polling target, and the third mandates relay behavior. Information is front-loaded, with the core ask in the first sentence and no redundant or filler content.

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 description is fully adequate for a two-parameter tool: parameters are fully documented by the schema, and the description explains the async outcome pattern, the badge UI, and the agent-side relay requirement. It covers everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and handle the follow-up step, despite the absence of an output schema.

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 mentions 'confirmation button' which aligns with the wait_for enum's 'confirmation' option and 'instruction' schema text already states 'Exactly what the person should do, in one sentence.' The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail 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 begins with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Ask the human to do something in the browser,' and further distinguishes it from notification tools by specifying it 'show[s] the request in the on-page badge with a confirmation button.' This makes the tool's unique role clear and differentiates it from sibling tools like notify_user and session_poll_user_action.

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 for use: it is for asking a human to act in the browser and uses a badge with a confirmation button. It also gives explicit follow-up guidance: 'Returns immediately — poll session_poll_user_action for the outcome' and instructs the agent to relay the instruction in the reply. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention an alternative such as notify_user, so it stops short of a full 5.

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