flow-add-echo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ({ message, stepCount, savedTo }) and the failure condition (no recording in progress). It also explains the side effect of echoing a message when replayed. Absent are details about mutations to the flow file, but the behavior is adequately characterized.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first sentence, then provides usage guidance, return information, and failure condition in a few sentences. Every sentence 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?

The description is complete for this tool's complexity: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and a key error condition. Even without an output schema, the return shape is explicitly stated, making the tool's behavior fully comprehensible in 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter described (name, project_root, message). The description's mention that `name` + `project_root` identifies the flow is already embodied in the project_root schema. Thus the description adds no significant semantic value beyond the schema, matching the baseline for 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's function: 'Record an echo step in the flow named by `name` + `project_root`' and explains that echo steps print a message on replay, distinguishing it from flow-add-step. It is specific and 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 explicit guidance: 'Use when you want to annotate a recorded flow with a human-readable label or checkpoint message.' It also notes the failure condition when no recording is in progress. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like flow-add-step, so it stops short of a full alternatives comparison.

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