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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the exact behavior (echoing back text) and frames it as a connectivity check, implying no side effects or state changes. While it doesn't explicitly say 'read-only' or 'no side effects,' the nature of an echo tool makes this strongly implicit.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a practical use case. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a trivially simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description fully covers its purpose, behavior, and recommended use context. Nothing important is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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 input schema describes the single parameter 'text' as 'The text to echo back,' achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter constraints, format, or limits. With full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Echoes back the text you send,' which is a specific verb+resource action. It is unambiguous and distinct from all sibling tools such as calculate, read_file, or create_document. No other tool suggests echoing input, so it stands alone.

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 provides a use case: 'Useful as a connectivity check to verify the server is reachable.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but for such a simple utility this is sufficient.

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