respond_to_copilot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core action (sending user input to a waiting Copilot process) and the interactive-mode context, but it does not explain what happens after the response is sent, whether the session continues, or how the tool behaves if Copilot is not waiting for input.

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 sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence providing a concrete trigger example. There is minor redundancy between the two sentences (both mention permission), but no filler or wasted content.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description covers the primary use case well. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits outcome details (what happens after the response is delivered) and edge-case behavior (failure when no process is waiting), which an agent would need for robust invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the schema's response examples ('yes', 'no', or custom text) but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents for session_id and response.

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 states a specific action ('Respond to a Copilot CLI permission question') with a clear resource and context ('in interactive mode'), plus a concrete example ('Allow file modification?'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing the task as permission-response rather than session management, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'When Copilot asks for permission... use this tool to send the user's response.' This tells an agent exactly when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly address alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer resume_copilot_session or run_copilot_conversation instead.

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