ack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that acking signals to the sender that the agent received the message and is working on it, and that no reply is sent yet. It does not cover all possible side effects or error behavior, but for a simple ack operation the disclosed effect is sufficient.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first states the action, the second explains the behavioral effect, and the third gives routing guidance against `reply`. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and usage context well. The only notable gap is that the source and meaning of `a2a_task_id` is left implicit, which matters because the schema offers no parameter description.

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 never mentions `a2a_task_id` or explains where it comes from. The schema only provides the generic title 'A2A Task Id', so the agent is left to infer that this parameter identifies the incoming DM's task. A short pointer to get_inbox or to the originating task would have compensated for the missing schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Acknowledge', tied to a clear resource, 'an incoming DM', and explicitly distinguishes `ack` from `reply`, which acks and submits in one call. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable even without reading the schema.

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 gives direct usage guidance: prefer `reply` for most flows, and use `ack` standalone only when thinking before replying is needed. It names the alternative sibling explicitly and states the exact condition under which this tool should be selected.

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