tandem_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose key stateful behavior: idempotency for identical duplicates, rejection of conflicting second answers, and failure on stale IDs. It does not detail unrelated side effects, but the output schema covers return behavior.

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?

Two terse sentences put the core purpose first and then capture edge-case behavior with no filler or repeated schema details. Every sentence 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 simple 3-string tool with an output schema, the description covers the critical invocation context: pending clarifications, stale failures, and duplicate behavior. Minor gaps—how IDs are obtained and where this fits among the sibling tools—are not essential to making a correct call.

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 0%, but the description adds contextual meaning: IDs must refer to a pending clarification and can go stale, and the 'answer' is the exact clarification response. It never names the parameters explicitly or describes formats, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action ('Answer exactly the pending clarification') and identifies the resource: a clarification associated with a task and question. 'Resuming the same worker' adds useful context that separates it from generic start/list tools, though no sibling alternative is explicitly named.

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?

It clearly indicates the tool is for replying to a pending clarification and notes edge cases where it should not be used ('Expired/stale IDs fail'; a different second answer is rejected). It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives among the tandem_* siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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