eco

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it states the complete observable behavior: the output is identical to the input. That fully implies a side-effect-free, deterministic operation. It stops short of saying this is a diagnostic/round-trip tool, which would have made it a 5.

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?

A single short sentence with zero padding, and the essential behavior is front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 one-parameter pure function with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description says enough to invoke it correctly. The only gap is that it never hints at the intended use case, such as verifying connectivity or round-tripping text.

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% and the single parameter already documents itself as 'Texto a repetir'. The description only restates that the received text is returned, adding no format, length, or encoding details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a concrete behavior: it returns exactly the text it receives, which disambiguates the terse name 'eco'. It does not distinguish itself from the siblings, but those (info_sistema, hora_actual, sumar) are unrelated utilities, so differentiation is less critical here.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether this is meant for connectivity checks, round-trip testing, or echoing values back to a caller. The usage is only implicit from the echo semantics.

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