respond

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

Beyond the annotations (which are neutral), the description discloses the side effects: 'Marks the original question as read and inserts an `answer` whisper to the asker.' This informs the agent that the tool modifies state (write operation) and is not idempotent. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no waste. It front-loads the core action and then explains when to use it and what happens. Every sentence serves a 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 and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers purpose, usage context, and side effects. It lacks details like error conditions or prerequisites, but these are less critical for a straightforward answer 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?

The input schema has two required parameters (qid, content) with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by linking qid to 'signals.id' from the question, and content to the answer. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Answer a specific question (signals.id) with a directed whisper.' It specifies the resource (a question identified by signals.id) and the action (answering with a whisper). It also distinguishes from siblings like 'ask' (which likely poses a question) and 'whisper' (general whisper), as it specifically targets `+question` entries.

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 explicitly says 'Use after seeing a `+question` entry in inbox()/wait().' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. It implies not to use it arbitrarily, but it does not name alternative tools for other scenarios, which would improve the score further.

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