Reads back an uncertain outgoing agent-to-agent operation from a lease without republishing it, keeping missing peer-receipt evidence marked unknown.
Explicitly read back an uncertain outgoing operation; never republish it.
Relay observation is not proof of peer receipt. Missing evidence stays unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lease_token | Yes | ||
| operation_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden, but it does add real behavioral context: it is a non-mutating read-back, it never republishes, and its result may legitimately be inconclusive ('Missing evidence stays unknown'). It still omits what the call returns, whether it needs authorization, and what happens when the lease_token is stale or invalid.
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 short sentences with no padding, and the core directive ('read back ... never republish') is front-loaded. The second sentence is somewhat aphoristic rather than procedural, but it is compact and adds epistemic guidance.
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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the agent needs to know parameter meaning and what a successful or unknown result looks like. The description supplies neither, and the lease vs. operation relationship is entirely unaddressed.
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% and both parameters (lease_token, operation_id) are undocumented. The description alludes to an 'outgoing operation', loosely mapping to operation_id, but says nothing about lease_token — neither its role nor its relationship to the dialogue lease tools. It does not compensate for the coverage 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 gives a specific verb ('read back') and object ('an uncertain outgoing operation'), so the general intent is graspable. But it never names a sibling tool as the alternative (e.g., a4a_dialogue_history, a4a_dialogue_checkpoint) and abstracts the reconciliation purpose into metaphor, so distinguishing it from other dialogue tools requires inference.
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?
'never republish it' implicitly tells the agent what this tool is not for, and 'uncertain outgoing operation' hints at the use case. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the sibling reconciliation/checkpoint tools, and no prerequisites such as when an operation becomes 'uncertain'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.