rc_noop_auth

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait of requiring authentication, but does not elaborate on failure modes (e.g., what happens if auth fails) or return behavior beyond echoing parameters. With no annotations provided, more detail on side effects or error handling would improve transparency.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and the key distinction. It is front-loaded, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines for purpose and auth).

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 noop tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, its auth requirement, and relation to a sibling. It could explicitly mention that the return value echoes the input parameters, but this is implied.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. The mention of 'echo parameters' implies they are returned, but this is already inferable from the schema.

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 'Echo parameters (auth required)' and distinguishes it from the sibling 'rc_noop' by noting the authentication requirement. The verb 'echo' and resource 'parameters' are specific, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context by relating to 'rc_noop' and explicitly stating the authentication requirement, which guides the agent on when to use this tool (when auth validation is needed). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide further alternatives.

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