run_copilot_conversation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It openly discloses non-interactive mode and the needsInput=true possibility, which is useful. However, it does not warn that Copilot can execute shell commands or write files (given allow_tools and autonomous mode), so the tool could be misperceived as read-only.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, use cases follow, and the permission caveat is positioned at the end. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It says 'returns the complete response' without specifying format (stdout/stderr/exit code) and omits side-effect warnings for a tool that can run arbitrary tools. Given the tool's complexity, more detail is warranted.

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 100%, so the structured schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some context around permission_mode behavior (interactive mode and needsInput), but does not materially enrich the meaning of the other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource: 'Execute a prompt with GitHub Copilot CLI.' It clarifies the non-interactive mode (-p) and explicitly names respond_to_copilot as the sibling to use for permission questions, which distinguishes it from the other siblings.

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 tells the agent to use this for 'one-shot tasks like code generation, explanation, debugging, etc.' and provides a conditional alternative ('use respond_to_copilot to answer') for interactive permission mode. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer resume_copilot_session or list_copilot_sessions, leaving those exclusions implied.

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