Answer TraeCN Question

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

With all four hint flags false, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so by explaining the stateful nature of the operation: the gateway routes the answer to the pending visible prompt and reports the outcome. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the neutral annotations and implies the operation mutates interaction state.

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 with zero redundancy: purpose is front-loaded, the routing/outcome behavior follows, and the usage precondition closes. 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, triggering condition, and post-invocation behavior. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens when no pending interaction actually exists.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is well-described ('The user's answer to the pending question'). The description's phrasing 'supplying the user's decision' echoes the schema without adding significant new semantic detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (resolve) and resource (exceptional question from TraeCN) plus the triggering context (the gateway could not handle it mechanically). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like traecn_send_message or traecn_decide_approval, which serve different interaction types.

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 gives an explicit precondition ('Only call when a pending interaction exists') and frames when it applies (questions the gateway cannot handle mechanically). It does not explicitly name which sibling tools are alternatives or when they should be chosen instead, but the pending-interaction gate is clear and actionable.

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