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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses fail-closed authentication requirements, confirms no side effects ('Does not admit tools and does not execute other tools'), and specifies conditional output based on includeEstate. This is strong behavioral disclosure.

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?

Four sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by return details, exclusions, a direct usage pointer, and the auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the return contents, the conditional estate flag, the lack of side effects, and the auth constraint. It is nearly complete; only edge-case error behavior is not described, which is a minor gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by tying includeEstate to the estate report and showing how the returned data varies, but it largely restates what the schema already documents.

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 verb and resource: 'Read the current session pack and schema token-tax report.' It also explicitly differentiates itself by saying it 'does not admit tools and does not execute other tools,' and names context.need as the related sibling to compare against.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this before context.need to see what is already loaded.' It also clarifies what the tool does not do, helping an agent avoid using it for admission or execution. It does not explicitly address echo.ping, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: allowlist intersection, fail-closed behavior, the stripe.charge restriction for research, non-execution of admitted tools, denied[] output, ledger recording, and sessionId defaulting are all disclosed.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by restrictions, post-conditions, defaults, and failure behavior, all in a compact, readable form.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains key return behavior (denied[]) and points to tools/list and context.inspect for further observation. It does not specify the full success response shape, but the essential operational context is present.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the fail-closed intersection, the specific research/stripe.charge restriction, and the denied[]/ledger behavior tied to the tools parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Admit extra tools or a named pack into this session (allow-by-need).' It clearly distinguishes what the tool does from the siblings context.inspect and echo.ping by framing it as an admission action rather than inspection or echo.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when extra tools or a pack need to be admitted. It also provides follow-up guidance (tools/list, context.inspect), though it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or systematically contrast it with alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not hit the network, mutate vault state, or charge, and that it is idempotent except for an audit-ledger append. This gives an agent a clear behavioral safety profile without needing structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance, side-effect transparency, and a sibling distinction. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant prose.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is echoed, what authentication context is returned, when to use it, and what side effects to expect. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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?

There is only one optional parameter, message, and schema description coverage is 100%. The schema already explains that the message is echoed back and that omitting it sends an empty ping, so the description adds little beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with 'Identity probe' and states precisely what the tool does: echoes call arguments and the authenticated Principal. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling context.inspect with the explicit 'Not a substitute for context.inspect' note, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use it to confirm Bearer identity survived onto the tool worker.' It also provides a clear when-not-to-use signal by stating it is not a substitute for context.inspect, naming the relevant alternative.

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