prompt_sync

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses blocking behavior, early return conditions, and event collection. Could add more about error handling details, but sufficient for a safe write-like operation.

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, front-loaded with main behavior. No fluff. Every sentence adds value: blocking behavior, early returns, async alternative.

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?

Covers key aspects: blocking, early returns, permission_request, timeout. No output schema, but event collection is implied. Could be improved by specifying event list structure, but complete given sibling context.

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 baseline 3. Description adds overall context about early returns and blocking but does not add specific parameter-level meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the tool sends a prompt and blocks until completion, error, or permission_request. It specifies the resource (prompt) and behavior (returns events, early return on permission_request/timeout). Distinguishes from async sibling pattern.

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 provides when-to-use guidance: 'For the async pattern, use prompt_polled + prompt_events instead.' This tells the agent when NOT to use this tool and gives the alternative.

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