reply

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

Describes the combined ack-and-submit behavior and that the recipient sees the text as `reply_text`. No annotations present, so the description carries the burden and discloses key behavioral traits, though it omits details like side effects on inbox.

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?

Five concise sentences, each adding value: purpose, behavioral combo, parameter source, effect, and return. No verbosity.

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 no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers core aspects (purpose, key parameter usage, return). Missing explanation for `confidence` and error scenarios, but still largely complete for a reply tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning for `a2a_task_id` (source from `get_inbox`) and `text` (appears as `reply_text`), but does not explain the `confidence` parameter, leaving it unclear.

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 'Reply to an incoming DM' and distinguishes from siblings like 'send_dm' (new DM) and 'ack' (acknowledgment only) by noting 'Ack-then-submit in one call'.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to 'Pass the A2A task id from `get_inbox`', but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'ack' or 'send_dm'.

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