session_respond

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the trigger condition and valid input format for `choice`, but does not disclose error behavior, side effects, or what happens if called outside the allowed state. The exclusion of launch dialogs is useful context, but more is needed for full transparency.

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 succinct and well-structured: purpose, input format, and exclusion are each covered in distinct, focused sentences. No redundant or extraneous text.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the core usage and preconditions. However, with no output schema, it fails to mention return values or post-response behavior, and the `name` parameter is undefined. These gaps make it adequate but not complete.

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?

The description thoroughly explains the `choice` parameter (option number or navigation key), but leaves the required `name` parameter completely unexplained. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate for all parameters, and the omission of `name` is a significant gap.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's function: answering an on-screen prompt, with a specific condition (`state` is `awaiting_input`). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `session_send` or `session_wait`.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance (`state` is `awaiting_input`), a when-not exclusion (launch dialogs are handled automatically), and a prerequisite (read the question via `session_status`). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for sending input, so not a 5.

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