Document and code comment are inconsistent for `is_final_response()` usage

[tosi29]

Describe the bug

According to document,

Use is_final_response(): Rely on this helper method in your application/UI layer to identify complete, user-facing text responses. Avoid manually replicating its logic.

The document recommends to use is_final_response() method.

However, according to comment,

NOTE: This method is ONLY for use by Agent Development Kit.

This implies the method is internal and should not be used by application developers.

It looks inconsistent.
It is unclear whether this method is intended to be a public API for developers or strictly for internal use within the ADK.

To Reproduce
N/A

Expected behavior
Please clarify the intended usage of is_final_response().
If it is for public use (as per docs), the code comment "ONLY for use by Agent Development Kit" should be removed or rephrased.

Screenshots
N/A

Desktop (please complete the following information):
N/A

Model Information:
N/A

Additional context
N/A

[Akshat8510]

I'd like to work on this! It seems like a simple comment update to align the code with the public documentation. Please assign it to me.

[llalitkumarrr]

Hello @tosi29 ,

The is_final_response() method on an event indicates whether that event represents the concluding output from the agent that authored it for that specific stage of the process.

It is important to note that in a multi-agent conversation (e.g., Agent A calls Agent B):
*Agent B will emit an event with is_final_response() == True when it has completed its task.
*Agent A will later emit its own event with is_final_response() == True when it has finished its processing, potentially after receiving the response from Agent B.

So, you can see multiple events where is_final_response() is True within a single user turn, one for each agent that finishes its part of the workflow. It does not just mean the end of the entire turn, but the end of an individual agent's contribution at that point.

This issue also discuss the same.

[tosi29]

@llalitkumarrr
Thank you for the explanation, I understood the behavior.
However, my question is about the intended usage policy.

Since the document and code comment contradict each other, which one should we follow?
Is this method intended to be public or internal?

[Akshat8510]

@llalitkumarrr, thank you for the detailed breakdown of how the method works.
To follow up on @tosi29's point and get this issue resolved: since the documentation currently encourages developers to use this method, should we consider it Public API?