prompt_codebuddy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two important behaviors: 'lazily starts CodeBuddy' and the result either completes the turn or returns a permission request. It does not mention timeout behavior or cancellation, but it does reveal the key side effect and the permission flow.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first states the action, and the second adds the lazy-start and permission-request behaviors, both of which earn their place.

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 description covers the main call flow and output shape, especially since an output schema exists. However, it omits timeout_seconds semantics and does not fully explain what a 'bound' session requires or how to obtain one, leaving moderate gaps for a tool without annotations.

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 for the parameters, but it only implicitly clarifies 'prompt' as a text prompt and 'bridge_session_id' as the bound CodeBuddy session. The 'timeout_seconds' parameter is entirely undocumented in the description, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Send a text prompt to the bound CodeBuddy session.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which create, close, cancel, or respond to permission requests rather than send prompts.

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 provides clear usage context: it sends a prompt to an existing bound session, may lazily start CodeBuddy, and can return a permission request that routes to respond_codebuddy_permission. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare alternatives, but the context is sufficient for selecting this tool.

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