echo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states the behavior: text is echoed back to the caller. It doesn't elaborate on edge cases like empty strings or exact formatting, but the operation is trivial and the description adequately discloses the core behavior.

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 with no wasted words. It conveys the purpose and behavior efficiently, making it an excellent model of conciseness.

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?

The tool has one required parameter, a trivial operation, and an output schema (not shown). The description gives all necessary calling context: provide text, receive the same text back. Nothing essential is missing, and the complexity is so low that additional detail would be unnecessary.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning by referring to 'the given text', which essentially restates the parameter name. For a single, self-explanatory string parameter this is adequate, but it does not provide examples, constraints, or additional context beyond the 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 'Echo the given text back to the caller' uses a specific verb ('echo') and identifies the resource ('the given text'). It is immediately clear what the tool does and can be distinguished from the sibling tool markdown_to_pdf simply by purpose, even without an explicit comparative mention.

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 implies usage: if an agent needs to pass text through unchanged, this is the tool. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as markdown_to_pdf. The intended use is self-evident but not articulated.

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