Answer a question from a run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the configuration dependency and the automatic rejection behavior, and clarifies the ordered structure of answers. However, it does not state whether the run automatically resumes after answering or how errors are handled, leaving minor gaps.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides a critical usage condition, and the third clarifies parameter structure. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of filler.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, and parameter format. It could be more explicit about what happens after the answer is submitted (e.g., run resumes), but the provided context is sufficient for a simple 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the description adds limited semantics beyond the schema. The mention of 'answers' holds one array of chosen labels per question reinforces the schema but does not introduce new information. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Answers') and a clear resource ('the question a run is parked on'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like opencode_wait or opencode_cancel by focusing specifically on answering a parked question.

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 states when the tool is reachable ('Only reachable when autoAnswerQuestions is disabled') and when it is not ('otherwise questions are rejected automatically'), providing clear usage boundaries. It also explains the rationale (preventing headless runs from hanging), which helps the agent decide when to invoke it.

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