Answer a parked question by selecting one of its provided options to resolve ambiguous referents and unblock a work order.
Answer a parked question (the never-guess rule: when the compile found two plausible referent sets it asked, and the answer unblocks the work order). The options are on the question; answer with one of them, in the owner's words.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answer | Yes | ||
| question | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the answer unblocks the work order and that the options are on the question, but it omits permissions, reversibility, validation behavior, and what happens to the parked question afterward.
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 compact and front-loaded: it starts with the action, then adds the workflow context and answer constraint. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.
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 two-parameter workflow tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and use case but leaves gaps around side effects and parameter format. An agent still lacks guidance on where to obtain the parked question or what the tool returns.
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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for both parameters by saying the question contains options and the answer should be one of them in the owner's words, but it does not clarify whether 'question' is an ID or text, nor the exact expected answer format.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Answer a parked question.' It clarifies the tool's role in the compile workflow, but it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from its siblings, which keeps it below 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 gives clear usage context: use this when the compile found two plausible referent sets and asked a parked question, and the answer unblocks the work order. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the triggering condition is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.