Answer a message

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

Discloses that the tool refuses needs='human' items and explains the cooperative --as-human attribute. This gives insight into the tool's internal logic and side effects, especially given no annotations are present.

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 concise but slightly stream-of-consciousness, mixing the main action with a conditional note. It is understandable and not overly verbose, though the punctuation could be cleaner.

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?

Provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool, including the refusal case and the meaning of the --as-human flag. No output schema exists, so no additional return-value documentation is needed.

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?

Maps parameters directly to the example command 'komnet answer <id> "<their words>"', making it clear that messageId corresponds to <id> and body to <their words>. This adds concrete meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly identifies the action as answering a message and specifies the source as the inbox. The phrase 'as YOURSELF' distinguishes this from acting as another agent, and the refusal of needs='human' items sets it apart from sibling 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?

Explicitly describes when to use the tool: to answer messages that do not require human intervention. It also instructs to surface needs='human' items instead of answering, providing clear guidance on alternative handling.

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