confirm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: waiting (blocking) and timeout defaulting to reject, which is crucial for a confirmation tool. However, it does not state what the tool returns on success or whether it returns a boolean or other result.

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 a single sentence plus an example. It is front-loaded with the primary action, includes a relevant example, and contains no extraneous information. Every word contributes.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential timeout behavior but omits the return value/result semantics. It also doesn't mention any side effects or environment requirements. While not severely lacking, the missing return info leaves a 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?

The schema has a single prompt parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description provides an example (confirm(prompt='确认执行该操作？')) that illustrates the parameter's usage as a question string, but it does not elaborate on expected format or content beyond the example.

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 initiates and waits for a voice security confirmation, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It is distinctly different from sibling tools like run_cli, find_file, open_folder, and speak. The timeout behavior adds further specificity.

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 implies usage for security-related confirmations via the term '语音安全确认' (voice security confirmation) and provides an example, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It gives context but lacks clear guidance.

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