arif_transport_echo

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool returns transport-level details and is diagnostic. It explicitly states 'No session, no actor, no governance,' indicating no side effects or authentication needs. Does not mention potential rate limits or performance impact, but overall transparent.

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?

Two efficient sentences with the CANARY tag upfront. Every sentence adds value: function, return content, use case, and constraints. 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 the tool's purpose and usage context well. However, with three undocumented parameters, the description should at least hint at their role. Given the output schema exists, return values are likely covered there, so the description is partially complete but lacking parameter guidance.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (payload, _envelope, client_capabilities). Agents receive no guidance on how to use these optional parameters, leaving a significant gap in usability.

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 returns transport-level details (headers, protocol, source, transport hint) and is a zero-floor diagnostic tool. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing its focus on transport debugging.

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?

Explicitly states the use case: 'Use to debug why a specific client can connect while another cannot.' Also mentions 'No session, no actor, no governance,' indicating it is safe to call without specific permissions. No exclusion or alternative tools are provided, 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.