user_input_required_guidance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level action ('handle escalation') without detailing what happens post-escalation (e.g., tool behavior, side effects, or expected return). This is insufficient for an agent to understand consequences.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and conditions. No redundant or unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks guidance on what happens after escalation or how the agent should proceed. It covers the trigger conditions but is incomplete for full autonomous use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters well. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing trigger conditions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb 'Handle escalation', the resource 'user input', and the conditions 'when iteration limits reached or checkpoints triggered'. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which are more about general guidance or workflow actions.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (when iteration limits or checkpoints are triggered), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools among the siblings. The usage is implied rather than explicitly bounded.

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