dsh_answer_question

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

The description discloses that this is a write operation ('/api/respond write'), is non-retried, and performs local validation before the write. These details go beyond the all-false annotations, providing useful behavioral context, though it does not mention error handling or side effects.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action, the second adds key behavioral constraints. No unnecessary words 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?

The description covers the core action, validation, and write behavior, but lacks details on return values, failure modes, or how to discover pending questions. Given the presence of 5 parameters and no output schema, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It references requestId, task lineage, question ids/order, and selections, which gives partial meaning to taskId, requestId, and answers. However, optional parameters sinceCursor and expectedRevision are left entirely unexplained.

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 it answers a currently pending DSH question request, using a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like dsh_resolve_approval or dsh_cancel, which handle different operations.

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 phrase 'currently pending typed DSH question request' implies the tool is used when a question is awaiting response, giving clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's niche is obvious from the description alone.

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