Echo

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes that the tool echoes back input and implies no side effects, which is appropriate for a simple test tool. The authentication check context adds transparency about its expected use without contradicting any annotations.

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 only two sentences, with the primary action in the first sentence and the purpose in the second. Every word contributes value, with no fluff or 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 tool of this low complexity, the description is complete. It explains what it does, when to use it, and the schema fully covers the parameter. No output schema is needed, and the description sufficiently covers all necessary context for a simple echo tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already fully explains the 'text' parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that the text is echoed back, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 with a specific verb ('Echoes back') and resource ('the text you send'). It also provides an additional purpose ('connectivity and authentication check'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that deal with projects, deployments, and API keys.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (as a connectivity and authentication check), providing clear context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but for a simple echo test tool this is sufficient.

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