MCP Server Starter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action ('echo back') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, error handling, performance characteristics, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core functionality. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse and understand without unnecessary details.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects, usage context, and output details, which are necessary for the agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret the tool effectively.

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% description coverage, with the parameter 'text' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it only repeats the concept of echoing text without elaborating on parameter usage or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Echo back the provided text' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('echo back') and resource ('the provided text'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch' or 'search', which might have overlapping or distinct functionalities, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch' or 'search'. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate scenarios or comparisons with sibling tools.

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