a2a_respond_task

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 only states that a response is sent and task status may be updated, but omits details about permissions, failure modes, reversibility, or what the response looks like. This is minimal for a tool that mutates task state.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no filler. 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?

Despite having 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description only covers the basic action. It does not explain when to use artifact parameters, what happens after sending, or the default status behavior (completed). The agent is left without enough context for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no significant parameter insights beyond summarizing that a message is sent and status may change; the artifact parameters are not addressed.

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 specific action ('Respond to an A2A task') and the agent's role ('as the assigned agent'), while the mention of optionally updating the task status adds scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like a2a_submit_task, a2a_cancel_task, and a2a_get_task.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you are the assigned agent responding to a task. It clearly sets the context ('as the assigned agent') but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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