answer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that answering unblocks the delegate, that questions only originate from pi extensions, and points to obtaining requestId from status. It does not mention potential side effects, permissions needed, or what happens if the value is invalid, but the key blocking behavior is disclosed. It adds useful context beyond the raw schema.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then critical usage conditions and unblocking note. No wasted words, all content earns its 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?

For a simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: how to get requestId, when questions arise, and that answering resolves a block. It doesn't spec edge cases, but the minimum needed for correct invocation is present.

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 coverage is only 33%, so description must compensate. It explains requestId (retrieve from status), but sessionId is not described. Value is already described in the schema as string/boolean with a confirm purpose, so that's covered. The description adds meaningful guidance for requestId, but sessionId remains undocumented. Partial compensation, not full.

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?

Description clearly states the tool answers a question raised by a pi agent, identifies the resource (question) and the action (answer). It differentiates from siblings by specifying the context (pi extensions, delegates with extensions:true) and that it's distinct from other tools like run, steer, or follow_up. The specificity of 'question raised by a pi agent' removes 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?

Explicitly describes when to use: only for questions from pi extensions, which appear only for delegates spawned with extensions:true, and specifically notes the MCP adapter's tool-approval and elicitation prompts as typical sources. Also states that a waiting delegate is blocked until answered, implying urgency. This gives clear conditions and even hints at the source of requests.

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