arif_version_echo

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It adds behavioral context: 'CANARY' indicates test/version probe, 'Zero-floor version probe' implies minimal footprint, and 'No session, no actor, no governance' assures no side effects. While it doesn't mention output format or error cases, for a simple version echo this is nearly complete.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, label, usage guidance. No wasted words, well front-loaded with the core action. Highly concise and structured.

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 simple version probe with an output schema, the description covers return values (version, versions, dialect hints), usage context (before session init), and behavioral constraints. It doesn't explain the optional parameters, but those are likely ignored. Overall, it's sufficiently complete.

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% with three parameters (payload, _envelope, client_capabilities) having no descriptions. The description does not explain any parameter semantics, usage, or defaults. Since the description must compensate for the missing schema details, this is a significant gap.

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 returns 'MCP protocol version, supported versions, and dialect hints'. The verb 'Return' combined with the specific resources (version, versions, dialect hints) makes the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like arif_initialize_probe or arif_schema_echo by being a version probe.

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 says 'Use to detect version-dialect drift before attempting a full session init', providing a clear when-to-use scenario. Also states 'No session, no actor, no governance', which clarifies prerequisites and when not to use (e.g., after session init). This is exemplary guidance.

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