Echo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: output is verbatim input, with no device interaction or side effects. It is transparent about being a no-op diagnostic, though it says nothing about error behavior if the transport is down.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the behavior first and the purpose second, with zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is trivially simple. The description is nearly complete for its complexity; the only missing piece is guidance on the two input parameters.

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?

Two parameters ('text' and 'message') have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention either one. It is unclear which parameter actually supplies the echoed value or how the two interact (defaults suggest both optional), so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 specific verb and behavior ('Returns text verbatim') plus the operational purpose (transport liveness check). The parenthetical '(no device access)' distinguishes it from the many device-touching siblings like ping_device, read_screen, or get_device_status.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as a liveness/transport check and rules out device access, which tells an agent when to reach for it over device tools. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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