dsh_answer_question

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

Beyond the annotations (all false), the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: validations are performed locally, the operation results in exactly 'one non-retried /api/respond write'. This discloses retry semantics and the mutation path, which is useful for an agent deciding whether to invoke or expect idempotency. It does not contradict any annotation; readOnlyHint false aligns with 'write'.

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 earns its two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core action in clear terms, and the second adds dense behavioral context without fluff or redundant repetition of the schema. Every phrase contributes to helping an agent understand the tool.

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 5-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the core action, known validation, and write behavior. Optional parameters like sinceCursor and expectedRevision lack any contextual hint in the description or schema property descriptions, which is the main gap preventing a perfect score.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the naming burden. It partially succeeds by referencing 'requestId', 'task lineage', 'question ids/order', and 'selections', mapping loosely to requestId, taskId, answers[].id, and answers[].selected. However, optional parameters sinceCursor and expectedRevision are omitted, and there is no explicit mapping to the schema's custom field or the shape of the answers array.

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') and resource ('one currently pending typed DSH question request'), making it immediately obvious what the tool does. It lacks an explicit distinction from sibling tools like dsh_continue or dsh_followup, but the phrase 'currently pending typed DSH question request' narrows the purpose enough for an agent to separate it from general session or status tools.

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 phrase 'currently pending typed DSH question request' implies when to use the tool: when there is a pending question to be answered. However, the description does not explicitly say when not to use it or which sibling alternative to prefer (e.g., dsh_continue, dsh_followup). Usage guidance is implied rather than stated, leaving some room for an agent to misroute a call.

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