comms_get_acks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the query is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The word 'query' hints at read-only, but this is insufficient without explicit confirmation.

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, front-loaded sentence. It is concise with no extraneous words, but it could be slightly expanded without harming conciseness. It earns a 4 for efficiency.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values or pagination. It does not. For a simple query tool, additional context (e.g., what fields are in an ack) is missing. It feels incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes both parameters clearly ('Filter to acks for this message (omit = all)'). The description repeats this without adding new meaning. Baseline 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 'Query the acknowledgments log', specifying a clear verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like comms_acknowledge (which writes) and comms_recall (which retrieves 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases beyond the basic filtering. The description implies usage but does not explicitly provide context.

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