ps_research_answer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the control-flow effect (loop resumes, session unparks) and the decline path, which is genuinely beyond the schema. However, it omits auth requirements, idempotency/retry behavior, and what happens if answer is omitted or the request_id is stale.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the decline flag, with no filler. It is appropriately short for a control-flow call, though the second sentence is more encouragement than specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The core interaction is conveyed, but with 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the definition leaves key invocation details (what answer/request_id should contain, path params) under-specified for a session-driving tool.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It explains only `skip`; `answer`, `request_id`, `session_id`, `config_path` and `periscope_path` carry no meaning beyond their titles, leaving an agent unsure what to pass for the required identifiers.

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?

Names a specific action (reply to a session's question) and its effect (the loop continues), which distinguishes it from generic corpus/pipeline siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near neighbors like ps_research_followup or ps_research_step, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies the trigger ('a question the session asked') and gives one decision path (`skip: true` to decline), plus the 'how you unpark it' framing. But it never states when to prefer this over ps_research_followup/ps_research_step or what prerequisites (e.g. a parked session, valid request_id) must hold.

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