echo_nested

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say whether depth is bounded, what happens at extreme depths, whether output size is a concern (echo_large exists as a sibling), or that this is a side-effect-free read. Only the output schema hints at return shape.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, but a zero-annotation, zero-coverage tool with no usage guidance leaves the agent under-equipped. For a sibling set this dense, more disambiguation was warranted.

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 0% and the single parameter 'depth' is only obliquely referenced ('to the given depth'). There are no units, bounds, defaults, or edge-case behavior (zero, negative) described, so the description does not compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 pairs a specific verb (Return) with a specific resource (nested JSON structure) and a scope qualifier (to the given depth), so the agent knows the general shape of the output. It does not distinguish itself from the many echo_* siblings (echo_schema, echo_types, echo_large), which is the main gap.

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 and no mention of alternatives, despite a crowded echo_* sibling set where routing ambiguity is real. The agent is left to infer that this is a debug/testing helper.

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