ping

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Echo', which provides almost no behavioral details (e.g., no side effects, return behavior, or permission requirements). This is insufficient for a safe and informed selection.

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?

At one word, the description is extremely concise but underspecified. It sacrifices clarity for brevity, similar to the LOW example 'Process'. Every sentence should earn its place; here there is only one word that could be expanded.

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 is simple (one optional param, no output schema), the description 'Echo' is barely adequate. It implies the tool returns the input, but does not explicitly state return behavior or other context. Minimal completeness for a trivial 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'prompt' with description 'Message to echo'. The description 'Echo' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Echo' indicates the tool will repeat back the input, but it lacks specificity about the verb and resource. It is not a tautology (name is 'ping', description is different) but is vague on the precise action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings such as 'ask-codex' or 'fetch-chunk'. There is no context on prerequisites or alternatives.

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