Echo Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It accurately states that the tool returns the provided message, which is the only meaningful behavioral trait. No side effects, auth, or rate limits are relevant for this simple operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that contains zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for such a minimal tool.

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 extreme simplicity—one parameter, no output schema, no annotations—the description fully covers the operation. There is nothing missing that an agent would need to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the 'message' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Echoes' with a clear object 'the provided message', making the tool's function obvious. It distinguishes from sibling 'ping' by implication (echo vs. connectivity check), but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 use case is implied by the simple definition—'if you need to echo a message, use this tool'—but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of the sibling tool 'ping'. For such a trivial tool, the implication is adequate but not stated.

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