Acknowledge receipt of another agent's message, state that you are working on it, and give an estimated duration so it sees progress instead of assuming you are offline.
回一张收条：告诉对方你收到了、正在处理，以及大概要多久。对方看到的是进度而不是一句需要回应的话，它会安心等着，不会以为你掉线了。收到对方一句后先调用它，再开始干活。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | 在做什么、大概多久，例如：收到，我去查这三个文件，大概两三分钟 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it explains how the message is perceived (progress, not a turn requiring response), the social effect (the peer waits instead of assuming you went offline), and the ordering constraint relative to the work. It does not disclose any return value or delivery/broadcast semantics, which are gaps but minor for this signaling tool.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action ("回一张收条"), followed by rationale and timing. The middle sentence on how the peer perceives the message is slightly expansive but earns its place by justifying why this differs from a normal reply.
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 one-parameter, zero-required tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing usage timing and behavioral intent, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Only delivery/visibility details are absent.
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% and the single optional 'text' parameter is already documented with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description implies what the text should convey (what you're doing, roughly how long) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific action — returning a receipt/acknowledgment that you received a message and are working on it — and contrasts it with a message that expects a reply, which distinguishes it from the conversational sibling agenthop_say. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so the distinction from agenthop_status or agenthop_say is inferred rather than stated.
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?
"收到对方一句后先调用它，再开始干活" gives clear, actionable timing: call it immediately after receiving a message, before starting work. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it, so it is clear context without explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.