respond_to_intro

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: approving shares your disclosed information, declining does not. However, it is ambiguous whether 'your disclosed information' refers to all previously disclosed data or only the fields listed in disclose_fields. The optional disclose_fields parameter's effect on approval isn't clarified, so the behavioral transparency is incomplete.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every word earns its place. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with a 100% schema-covered parameter list and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the primary action and outcome. However, the interaction between approved and disclose_fields is left ambiguous, and the description doesn't state what happens to the intro request after the response, leaving a small completeness gap.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only refers vaguely to 'disclosed information,' which maps to disclose_fields but without further detail. Therefore the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Respond to an introduction request.' It also clarifies the two actions (approve/decline) and distinguishes this tool from siblings like request_intro, which handles the other side of the process.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you have an introduction request to respond to. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is well-scoped and no sibling duplicates this functionality, so a slightly lower but still strong score is appropriate.

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