emergent_respond_to_agent

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains that the agent is paused and waiting for input, and that responding enables the build to continue. This discloses the core behavioral effect without only restating the schema.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the usage condition is stated directly afterward. 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, when to use it, and what inputs are required. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents jobId and response adequately. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'Respond' and the resource: 'a HITL question from the Emergent agent.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like emergent_wait_for_build and emergent_wake_environment by specifying this is for human-in-the-loop responses, not waiting or environment actions.

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 a clear condition: 'Use when the agent has paused and is waiting for your input to continue building.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the trigger is specific enough for an agent to select this tool correctly.

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