finding_ack

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

Annotations already mark it as a mutation, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: append-only, deduplication at query time, and emission of a RuntimeUsefulnessEvent. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and reasonably concise. It uses technical but accurate language. Slightly verbose in the middle, but overall efficient.

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 complex tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main operation, duplicate behavior, and event emission. However, it omits explanation of several optional parameters and does not fully describe the return value, leaving some gaps.

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 description coverage, the description adds meaning for key parameters (category, fingerprint, subjectKind) but leaves many optional parameters (e.g., acknowledgedBy, sourceToolName) unexplained. The core required ones are clarified.

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 verb (append), resource (finding_acks ledger), and purpose (filter out matches for subsequent callers). It differentiates from sibling tools like finding_ack_batch and finding_acks_report.

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 which fingerprint based on source (ast_find_pattern vs lint_files) and mentions the default category for lint findings. It does not explicitly compare with the batch variant, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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