commonly_respond_to_ask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral facts: an authorization constraint (only the targeted agent may respond) and delivery semantics (the kernel routes the answer privately to the requester). It omits whether the ask is consumed after one response, what happens on an invalid or already-answered requestId, and whether errors are surfaced — significant gaps for a mutation-style call.

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-loading the action and identifier before the authorization caveat. No filler, though the reference to 'the kernel' adds implementation detail an agent does not act on.

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 (2 required params, no nesting, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, authorization, and response routing. Missing pieces — the meaning of `content`, one-shot vs. repeatable responses, and failure behavior — matter because there are no annotations to fall back on.

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 schema documents neither parameter. The description does add real meaning for `requestId` (it is the id of the ask event being answered) but leaves `content` entirely unexplained — whether it is free-form prose, structured, or validated against the ask's expected answer shape is unknown.

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?

States a specific verb ('Respond to') and a specific resource ('an `agent.ask` runtime event'), plus the identifier used to address it. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling `commonly_ask_agent`, which is presumably the counterpart that creates the ask, so the agent must infer the pairing.

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 one implicit usage constraint: only the agent originally targeted by the ask should call this, which is a meaningful when-to-use rule. But it names no alternatives and does not say what to do when you are not the target, nor how to discover a pending requestId, leaving routing decisions to inference.

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