echo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'back unchanged,' which communicates that there are no transformations, but it does not mention side effects, exactness guarantees (e.g., whitespace preservation), or any potential limitations. The phrase is minimally transparent but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: 'Echo the input text back unchanged.' One short sentence fully captures the tool's behavior with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool is simple: one string parameter, one obvious return value, and an output schema already provided. The description covers the essential behavior, and the schema handles the input structure. It does not need lengthy context because the operation is trivial and has no complex side effects.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the 'text' parameter. The description references 'input text,' which loosely indicates that the 'text' property is the string to echo, but it does not add syntax, formatting, or example-based meaning beyond the schema's basic type definition.

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 specific action and resource: 'Echo the input text back unchanged.' It clearly conveys that the tool returns the provided text without modification, and the first sentence differentiates it from sibling tools like health, add, multiply, get_user_profile, and fail, none of which involve echoing input.

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 implies that this tool should be used when the caller wants a direct, unmodified copy of the input text. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. For a trivial utility this is acceptable, but explicit guidance is missing.

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