zeph_input

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the blocking nature, timeout behavior, environment variable requirement, and that attachments arrive as local paths in the result. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotation hints and does not contradict them.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently covers blocking behavior, prerequisites, and attachment handling.

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 main functional aspects: purpose, blocking/timeout, environment requirement, and result attachment handling. It doesn't describe exact return structure beyond attachments, but given no output schema and moderate complexity, it's reasonably complete.

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 all parameters are described in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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: requesting text input from the user via push notification. It also specifies blocking behavior and attachment delivery, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like zeph_ask or zeph_prompt.

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 use when interactive user input is needed, and notes the prerequisite ZEPH_HOOK_ID environment variable. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as zeph_notify or zeph_ask.

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