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. 'Return the message back' implies a pure, side-effect-free read, which covers the most important behavioral trait. However, it says nothing explicit about side effects, permissions, or failure modes (e.g. what happens with an empty message, per the minLength constraint).

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?

Two short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded; nothing is buried. The second sentence is marginally expendable for an agent already told this is an echo template, but it does convey demo status cheaply.

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 one-parameter, side-effect-free echo with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: 'return the message back' effectively communicates the return value. An explicit statement that the output is the identical string would close the last gap.

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 single 'message' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, minLength 1, description 'What to send back'). The description mentions 'the message' but adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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?

States a concrete behavior: it returns the supplied message back, matching the name unambiguously. The second sentence adds that it is a template example tool, which is useful meta-context but doesn't sharpen the verb/resource pair. No siblings exist, so no differentiation is needed.

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?

'An example tool of the template' implies it is a demo/testing utility, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus any real functionality, and no preconditions or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this is not for production use.

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