request_info

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains behavioral traits: the request bead is not ephemeral, it appears in the target's poll_inbox, reply closes the bead via 'respond_info', and the return values. It also covers timeout behavior.

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 relatively concise and well-structured, with the purpose front-loaded. It could be slightly more concise, but it efficiently provides necessary details without being overly verbose.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, schema descriptions missing) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context: it explains the interaction flow, return format, and timeout handling. It is complete enough for correct 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explicitly explain each parameter. While 'to_sid', 'question', and 'timeout_s' are intuitive, the description only indirectly mentions 'timeout_s'. This lack of explicit parameter documentation reduces the value for an agent selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 asks another session a question and blocks for an answer. It specifies the action (ask, block) and the resource (another session), and distinguishes from siblings like 'poll_inbox' and 'respond_info' by describing the interaction pattern.

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 tells when to use this tool (to ask a question and wait for an answer) and provides guidance for timeout: use 'check_request' to poll later. It also mentions that the request stays open, so the agent knows to handle timeouts properly.

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