dsh_followup

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

The annotation already indicates it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds meaningful behavioral details: the write is never automatically retried, and the queue/steer modes define how the followup is targeted. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying retry behavior and mode semantics.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds mode distinction and retry behavior. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 behavior, mode semantics, and retry policy, but with no output schema and multiple siblings, it doesn't explain the intended response, prerequisites (e.g., session must exist), or interactions with dsh_status/wait. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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%, and the description only clarifies the 'mode' parameter (queue vs steer) and indirectly the 'prompt' (as the written content). It leaves 'taskId', 'sinceCursor', and 'expectedRevision' completely unexplained, which is insufficient given five parameters and no schema help.

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 identifies the tool's function ('Continue the same root DSH session') and distinguishes its two operational modes (queue vs steer). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling 'dsh_continue', which may cause ambiguity.

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 context ('continue the same root DSH session') and provides within-tool guidance on when to use queue vs steer, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like dsh_continue or dsh_delegate.

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