That seems odd. Even with an A2A protocol, don’t you still need to standardize a client “surface” or “API” or whatever, so agents can describe IDE actions they want to trigger in the expected terms over that protocol?

Or is A2A like USB, where it acts as both a registry of, and “standardized standardization process” for, suites of concrete message types for each use-case?

Like, yeah, when a "client" drives an "agent", that's no different than what any generic "agent" would be doing to drive an "agent"; an IDE or what-have-you can just act as the "parent agent" in that context.

But when an "agent" is driving a "client", that's all about the "agent" understanding that the "client" isn't just some generic token-driven inference process, but an actual bundle of algorithms that does certain concrete things, and has to be spoken to a certain way to get it to do those concrete things.

I had assumed that IBM's older ACP was in large part concerned with formalizing that side of interoperation. Am I wrong?