handle_reply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly frames the tool as a pure analysis function (returns interpretations) with no side effects, and it specifies the four output components. It does not mention edge cases or error behavior, but for a single-enum lookup tool this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and then lists the valid inputs. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or 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 tool with one simple enum parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the input enum and describes the conceptual output (meaning, next move, reply shape, trap). It is self-contained and gives the agent enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

Although the schema description coverage is 0% (the description does not name the parameter), the description lists all allowed reply types, which exactly matches the enum values in the schema. This effectively communicates what the parameter should be, and the context implies those are the valid inputs.

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 explicitly states that given a reply type it 'returns what it means, the next move, the reply shape, and the trap to avoid,' which is a specific verb and clear resource. The enumeration of reply types distinguishes it from the sibling tools like detect_red_flags or build_followup_ladder.

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 opening phrase 'Given the type of reply received' clearly establishes the context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, so it falls slightly short of a full 5.

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