request_input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the step pauses, resumes when provide_input is called, and the answer appears in the input field. Minor omission: does not discuss error conditions or permissions.

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 well-organized: purpose first, then usage guidelines, then behavioral explanation, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists and no additional complexities, the description covers the tool's behavior, parameters, and return value adequately. It also references the counterpart tool (provide_input) and explains the step's lifecycle.

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 0%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: step_id is inferred from environment, question should be specific, and partial_output is optional. This fully 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 pauses the step and asks for a decision. It specifies the resource (coordinator) and action, and distinguishes from siblings by highlighting human judgment scenarios.

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 when to use (forks requiring human judgment) with examples, and implies when not to use (cases without ambiguity). It provides clear context for usage.

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