arif_initialize_probe

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 states it simulates the handshake and returns a response, and notes 'No session, no actor, no governance,' implying no side effects. It could be more explicit about being read-only, but this is adequate for a test tool.

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 paragraph of 5 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, simulation detail, usage sequence, diagnostic hint, and disclaimer. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage sequence, and diagnostic value well. It mentions the return value (proper initialize response) and the tool's test nature. However, the complete lack of parameter documentation leaves a significant gap, making it only adequate.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters. While 'protocol_version' is implied by 'protocol version negotiation,' the payload, _envelope, and client_capabilities are completely undocumented. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 it is a test tool for the MCP initialize handshake, simulating protocol version negotiation and returning a proper initialize response. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying its place in the sequence (after ping, before session_init) and naming the sibling arif_session_init.

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 explicitly says 'Use AFTER ping passes but BEFORE arif_session_init' and provides diagnostic guidance: 'If this works but session_init does not, the problem is in the session init schema, not transport.' This gives clear context and exclusion.

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