external_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the multi-stage waiting condition, that `waiting` enumerates all pending stages, the default-to-first behavior, and the resume condition. It does not explicitly state that this is a non-mutating read or describe error behavior when the run is not paused, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, no filler, and the triggering condition is front-loaded before the mechanics. The use of backticks for `waiting` and stage names aids scanning. Slightly dense but every sentence contributes.

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?

There is no output schema or annotation coverage, so the description must explain both purpose and return content — and it does, stating the output is the system and user prompt and explaining the multi-stage selection behavior. What it omits (read-only nature, behavior when no stage is waiting) are minor for a 2-parameter read 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 coverage is 50%: `stage` is documented in the schema, while `run` is not. The description reinforces `stage` semantics ('pass stage to get another one's prompt', defaulting to the first) but adds nothing for `run`, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap. This matches the baseline 3 for a half-documented schema.

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 identifies the resource precisely — the system and user prompt a paused external seat needs answered — and implicitly tells the agent this fetches it. It clearly distinguishes itself from submit_stage (the answering path) and from the generic stage tools. It loses a point only because the action verb is left implicit in a subordinate clause rather than stated outright.

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?

Usage context is explicit: use it when a run is paused at an external seat, and the follow-up is named (answer with submit_stage, run resumes when none remain). It also explains the multi-stage case and how to pull another stage's prompt. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative-listing tool named for the paused-state query itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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