zeph_input

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and description adds that the tool blocks until user responds or timeout. This clarifies the blocking nature, which is not in annotations. However, it could mention what happens on timeout (null response?).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main action, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: first defines what it does, second adds key context (blocking, timeout, env var).

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 omits what the tool returns (e.g., user input string or null on timeout). Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the return value for completeness.

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 description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 requests text input from the user via push notification, blocks until response or timeout. This distinguishes it from siblings like zeph_notify (one-way) and zeph_ask (which may have different interaction).

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 mentions a prerequisite (ZEPH_HOOK_ID environment variable) and blocking behavior, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like zeph_ask or zeph_prompt. The decision is left to the agent.

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