arif_schema_echo

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

With no annotations, the description covers behavioral traits well. It states 'No session, no actor, no governance,' indicating stateless and safe operation. It discloses that the tool returns both the original payload and the server's interpretation, but does not specify whether any side effects occur (though implied none).

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 relatively concise with two sentences, but it mixes a first-sentence title with a paragraph. It could be more structured, but it is not verbose.

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?

While the description covers purpose and basic behavior, it lacks full parameter documentation. With three optional parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the burden.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions the 'payload' parameter, leaving '_envelope' and 'client_capabilities' undocumented. This is insufficient for an agent to understand all input options.

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 the tool's function: echo back the client's payload plus server's interpretation for transport diagnostics. It uses a specific verb ('echo') and resource ('payload') and distinguishes from sibling echo tools like arif_transport_echo by focusing on schema-level diagnostics.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to test if the transport bridge is mangling payloads. It implies a diagnostic use case but does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives among sibling tools.

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