submit_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the tool submits an answer and then causes run_session to execute again, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether the subsequent run_session is automatic or an instruction to the agent, nor does it disclose side effects on session state.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes the key follow-up action. There is no filler or redundant content, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 tool with three required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a non-obvious 'Founder-mode' concept, the description is too thin. It omits parameter semantics, expected response behavior, and any guidance on selecting this tool over session-management siblings.

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%, so the description should compensate, but it only implicitly clarifies the 'answer' parameter by saying to answer the question. The 'name' and 'question_id' parameters remain unexplained, and the description adds no detail about formats, roles, or how they relate to the session.

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 uses the specific verb "Answer" and names the resource: the session's pending Founder-mode question. It also mentions the follow-up action "run_session again," which clarifies the overall operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, so it narrowly misses a 5.

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 "pending Founder-mode question" implies the tool is used when the session is waiting for input, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives. The usage context is implied rather than stated, making it minimally adequate.

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