Respond to Codex Request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that unsupported methods 'remain pending and observable' and that each call answers exactly one request, which goes beyond the annotation data.

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 compact at two sentences. The first sentence conveys the core action and target; the second adds critical constraints (supported methods, behavior for unsupported ones). No wasted words.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description captures the essential purpose, supported method types, and a key behavioral trait. It could emphasize destructive side effects more, but the annotations already indicate destructiveness, so the description is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little semantic grouping (e.g., 'command/file approval methods' for decision/execpolicy_amendment, 'item/tool/requestUserInput' for answers/response) but does not significantly go beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 verb ('Answer') and resource ('one currently pending app-server request') with specific scope markers (original JSON-RPC id, exact thread/method). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on approval/response methods and explicitly noting that unsupported methods remain pending and observable.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (when there is a pending request) and explicitly excludes unsupported methods ('Supports only...'; unsupported methods remain pending). It does not name alternatives directly, but the scope and exclusions are clear.

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