api_test

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

No annotations are present. The description only says 'test your calling code' without disclosing that it echoes a parameter or returns an error, nor whether it has side effects. The minimal description fails to compensate for missing annotations.

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 concise with two sentences and no extraneous information. However, it could be more informative within the same length, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description does not explain the tool's behavior fully, such as default behavior when no parameters are set. For a testing tool among many operational tools, more context is needed.

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 100%, with the schema already describing the parameters clearly (echo foo, return error). The description adds no additional meaning, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Check API calling code. Helps test your calling code' is vague and does not specify what exactly is checked or tested. It distinguishes from siblings as a test tool but lacks specificity about actions like echoing parameters or returning errors.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Among many sibling tools, there is no mention of use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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