mcp_engram_ack_wake_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that calling this tool unblocks context_for_edit (conditional on ENGRAM_WAKE_QUEUE_GATE=hard) and clears soft warnings. It also explains auto-ack behavior at session start. This is good, though further detail on 'soft warnings' would strengthen transparency.

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 sentences, each adding essential information. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage and special cases. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (acknowledgment action with 3 optional parameters and no output schema), the description covers everything: when to call, what it does, conditions, side effects, and edge cases (empty queue). Complete for its role.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what is in the schema. It provides usage context but no new parameter-level information, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Acknowledge' and the resource 'wake queue execution', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like context_for_edit by specifying that it unblocks that tool under certain conditions. It also mentions clearing soft warnings, making the purpose explicit and unique.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call once after running harness_injection.suggested_actions (or honestly note skip)'. It also specifies an automatic behavior for empty queues, providing clear context for when the tool is not needed.

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