Needs Form Input

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the tool repeatedly returns input_required until the client sends inputResponses. However, it doesn't specify what happens after the retry or any side effects, but for a simple test tool this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return behavior and testing purpose. 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and purpose. It might benefit from stating the expected response after inputResponses, but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand invocation context.

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 a clear description of 'topic'. The main description doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it reinforces the context of follow-up input but doesn't explain format or constraints. Baseline 3 applies given high 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 explicitly states the tool's behavior: it returns resultType input_required until retried with inputResponses. It also states its testing purpose (MRTR and elicitation form mode), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like echo_meta or structured_result.

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 identifies a clear use case: testing MRTR and elicitation form mode. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the testing context is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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