sized_echo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic behavior (returns filler of given size) but does not specify the nature of the filler (e.g., random, repeating), whether size is exact, or any performance characteristics. The read-only and safe nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the basic function and purpose. However, without an output schema, it omits details about the exact format of the returned filler, which could be relevant for buffer probing. Still adequate for a test utility.

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 fully documents the size_kb parameter with range 0-8192. The description only repeats the parameter name without adding new meaning, so it does not surpass the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool returns a specified number of kilobytes of filler, and its purpose of probing buffer/message size effects distinguishes it from siblings like echo and ping. The verb 'returns' and the resource 'filler' are specific.

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 second sentence explicitly says the tool is 'for probing buffer and message size effects', providing clear context for when to use it. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clearly stated.

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