Answer a teammate agent's question by ID truthfully from your actual work, and state when you don't know.
Answer a question a teammate's agent asked you (ids like Q3). Answer truthfully from what you actually did and know; say so when you don't know.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answer | Yes | Your answer. | |
| ask_id | Yes | The question id, e.g. Q3. |
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 burden. It adds genuine guidance about answer content ('answer truthfully... say so when you don't know'), which is unusual and useful. However, it discloses nothing about delivery semantics — whether the asker is notified, whether the reply is durable, or what happens on an invalid ask_id.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the behavioral expectation. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.
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 two-parameter reply tool with no output schema, the description covers what to do and how to answer. The remaining gap is post-reply behavior (notification, persistence), which is minor for this tool's complexity.
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 both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the ask_id format with the 'ids like Q3' example, adding marginal value beyond the schema's own 'e.g. Q3' example. Baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Answer a question a teammate's agent asked you'), which is clearly the reciprocal of the sibling team_ask. It does not explicitly name team_ask as the counterpart, but the direction of the action is unambiguous.
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 is implied: this is the tool for responding to an inbound question from a teammate's agent. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. team_post for broadcasting), so the agent must infer the boundary from the phrasing alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.