msg_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of exposing behavior. It does mention 'polling' and 'wait for a reply', which is useful, but it does not disclose timeout consequences, error handling, or whether the message is persisted. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by an explanatory parenthetical. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should indicate what the tool returns. 'Wait for a reply' implies the return value is the reply, but its structure or error/timeout behavior is not described. For a simple synchronous messaging tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like timeout_seconds.

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 action ('Send a message') and the synchronous request/reply pattern, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like msg_send (fire-and-forget) and msg_broadcast (fan-out). The parenthetical 'synchronous request/reply pattern with polling' adds specificity.

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 phrase 'synchronous request/reply pattern' implies use when a reply is needed and waits are acceptable, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like a2a_submit_task for async work or msg_send for one-way messages. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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