agent_ack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the primary action of notifying senders; it does not disclose whether messages are marked as read, any irreversible effects, or prerequisites beyond reading via agent_inbox. This is insufficient for a tool that has side effects.

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 a single, direct sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Tells the senders') and no unnecessary wording. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and references the related agent_inbox. It could add a note about when exactly to use it, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4.

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 ('Tells') and clearly identifies the resource ('senders' regarding 'messages agent_inbox gave you'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from messaging tools like agent_send by focusing on acknowledgment rather than sending new messages.

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 clearly implies the context: use this after reading messages via agent_inbox to confirm receipt. It provides a clear usage context without explicit exclusions, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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