Resolve clarification questions from a prior GIS plan and re-plan with provided answers merged into the original context, returning an updated plan.
Resolve clarification questions from a previous gis.plan call.
Takes a JSON string of {question_id: answer_value} and re-plans with
the answers merged into the original context. Returns an updated plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answers_json | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that answers are merged into the original context and an updated plan is returned, but it omits side effects, error behavior, and what happens to unanswered questions.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the parameter format. Every sentence adds value without waste.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The purpose, input format, and relationship to gis.plan are covered, but the lack of behavioral detail around error cases or incomplete answers leaves a minor gap for an unannotated tool.
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 must compensate. It explains the single parameter as a JSON string mapping question IDs to answer values, which adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify constraints such as whether all questions must be answered.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it resolves clarification questions from a previous gis.plan call and re-plans with merged answers. This distinguishes it clearly from gis.plan and other siblings without 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?
It gives a clear condition for use: after a gis.plan call produces clarification questions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like gis.resume, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.