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 the tool performs calculations but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., division by zero), performance limits, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential side effects, scoring a 2 for inadequate transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence ('Perform basic arithmetic calculations') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning a 5 for optimal conciseness and structure.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (basic arithmetic with three parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral constraints, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's correct invocation. This scores a 2 for insufficient contextual detail.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (operation, a, b) with enums and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter information.

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 'Perform basic arithmetic calculations' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('perform') and resource ('calculations'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'echo' and 'get_system_info'. However, it doesn't specify the exact operations (add, subtract, etc.) or differentiate from potential alternative calculation tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to use it over other calculation methods or tools. This leaves the agent without usage direction, scoring a 2 for minimal guidance.

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

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 tool 'echoes back' the input, implying a read-only or non-destructive operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, error handling, or output format. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 and front-loaded with 'Echo back the input message', a single sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, or output, which could be helpful for an AI agent. However, for such a basic tool, it's adequate but leaves room for improvement in context.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'message' documented as 'Message to echo back'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only repeats the concept of echoing back a message without providing extra context or semantics. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema adequately covers the parameter.

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 as 'Echo back the input message', which specifies the verb ('echo back') and resource ('input message'). It's not tautological with the name 'echo' since it adds 'back the input message', but it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'calculate' or 'get_system_info', which are unrelated tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with siblings like 'calculate' and 'get_system_info', there's no indication of when 'echo' is the appropriate choice over those tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get basic system information' implies a read operation but provides no details about what information is returned, format, permissions required, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 - a single four-word phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded appropriately. This is an excellent example of efficient communication.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that presumably returns system information, the description is insufficient. 'Basic system information' is vague - it doesn't indicate what information is included (CPU, memory, OS, etc.) or the return format. The agent needs more context to understand what to expect from 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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. This matches the baseline expectation for parameterless tools, though it doesn't add any value beyond what the schema already indicates.

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 'Get basic system information' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('basic system information'), providing a general purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate' or 'echo' - it's clear what it does but not how it differs from alternatives. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'calculate' or 'echo'. There's no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent receives no help in choosing between available tools on this server.

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