answer_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the state gate, that digits select-and-submit in option dialogs, that option lists treat letters as hotkeys, and that Escape cancels the question and ends the turn with no answer. It omits what happens on an invalid status call and any permission requirements, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Purpose and precondition are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact, well-delimited enumeration of the accepted answer forms. Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the state gate and the main side effects (submit vs. cancel). Given it is a stateful mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, it is close to complete, with only error/invalid-status behavior left implicit.

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, and it does for `answer`: key names, single-digit option selection semantics, free-text-with-Enter, and the text-field-focus caveat are all spelled out. `terminal_id` is left entirely unexplained, though its meaning is largely self-evident from context.

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+resource ('Answer the question a terminal is blocked on') and immediately narrows scope with the precondition 'Only valid while its status is waiting_user_answer'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling send_session_message, which is the most likely confusion point, so it falls short of a 5.

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 state precondition (only valid while waiting_user_answer) tells the agent exactly when to reach for this tool, and it documents the Escape path as an explicit 'no answer' exit. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. what to use when the terminal is not blocked), so no explicit when-not routing.

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