respond

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states two side effects: marking the original question as read and inserting an answer whisper to the asker. This provides sufficient transparency about the tool's impact. It could be more detailed (e.g., error handling, idempotency), but the key behaviors are covered.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage context and side effects. Every word is necessary; no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 (two parameters) and the presence of an output schema (not shown, but indicated), the description is quite complete. It explains when to use it and what it does. It lacks error handling or preconditions beyond the usage hint, but for a straightforward mutation tool, it covers the essentials.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must provide parameter meaning. It links 'qid' to 'signals.id' (the question ID) and implies 'content' is the answer text. This adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not specify format constraints or edge cases (e.g., max length). The essential semantics are clear.

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: answering a specific question with a directed whisper. It mentions the context ('after seeing a +question entry') and distinguishes from siblings like 'ask' (for posing questions) and 'whisper' (generic). The verb 'answer' combined with 'directed whisper' provides a specific, unambiguous action.

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 advises when to use the tool: 'Use after seeing a +question entry in inbox()/wait().' This gives clear timing and context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools list includes 'ask' and 'whisper', which cover other cases. The guidance is clear and actionable.

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