pi_respond

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the behavioral meaning of the optional parameters (value for select/input/editor, confirmed for confirm, cancelled to dismiss) and adds context from pi_status/pi_wait. However, it does not explain side effects, whether the request is consumed, error conditions, or what happens after responding, leaving partial transparency.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every clause earns its place by explaining the trigger and the parameter semantics, with no filler or 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?

The description covers the core workflow (respond to a pending dialog) and parameter modes, but it leaves gaps in required context: taskId is unexplained, and there is no mention of return values or error behavior. With no output schema or annotations to fill these gaps, the description is adequate but not fully complete for a 5-parameter 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 80%, covering value, confirmed, cancelled, and requestId. The description adds the practical mapping of these parameters to dialog types, which is helpful, but it does not explain the required taskId parameter or its relationship to the pendingRequest. It does reference the source of requestId via pi_status/pi_wait, but that is already implied by the schema.

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 what the tool does: 'Answer a pending UI dialog reported as pendingRequest by pi_status/pi_wait.' It uses a specific verb ('Answer'), identifies the resource ('pending UI dialog'), and ties the tool to a concrete source (pi_status/pi_wait), distinguishing it from siblings like pi_send or pi_abort.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a pendingRequest is reported by pi_status/pi_wait. It also explains the three usage modes (value, confirmed, cancelled), which serve as conditional guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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