Enable/disable the end-of-task follow-up question

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

With no annotations, the description itself discloses key behaviors: persistence (state change), default off, effect on get_usage, and the env var override. It does not mention permissions or return value, but for a boolean setter these are less critical. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name and title.

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 concise and well-structured, with the key information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the mechanism and effect, the second the override. No fluff 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?

For a simple one-boolean setter with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers purpose, default, effect on a related tool, and the env var override, which are the essential aspects. There is no missing critical information.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining the meaning of the followup parameter indirectly: 'default off' and 'when on' indicate the boolean effect. However, it does not explicitly state that the followup parameter should be set to true to enable and false to disable, leaving a small gap.

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's purpose: it persists a follow-up mode that affects get_usage's behavior. It specifies the action ('Persists follow-up mode'), the resource (end-of-task follow-up question), and distinguishes from siblings by tying it to get_usage. The default (off) and overriding env var add precision.

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 implies when to use the tool: to control whether get_usage includes a follow-up question. It notes that when on, the agent will almost always get a prompt, and that an env var can override. It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of setting the env var' or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a simple setter.

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