demo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not disclose whether this tool has side effects, what it returns, how it processes the message, or whether the style/prefix defaults affect output. An agent has no behavioral expectations beyond the raw schema.

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 short, but under-specification is not effective conciseness. Neither 'Demo tool' nor 'with enum and default value' earns its place; both restate information already available from the tool name and schema. The structure is clear but does not deliver functional value.

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 3 parameters, 2 enums, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does, how the three parameters combine, or what an agent should expect after invocation. This is far below the minimum viable level for safe and correct use.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description's mention of 'enum and default value' merely echoes schema metadata without adding any meaning about how the parameters interact or what format values should take. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 says 'Demo tool with enum and default value,' which essentially restates the name 'demo' and points to schema features rather than stating what the tool actually does. There is no verb describing an operation or outcome, so an agent cannot tell whether this formats a message, echoes input, or performs some other demo action.

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 is given for when to use this tool versus its many siblings like test_echo, test_liveTest, or context-test_withTimeout. The word 'demo' implies a testing/demonstration purpose, but nothing explicitly states when this tool is preferred or what distinguishes it from the alternative test/demo tools.

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