Echo Metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that the tool returns the received arguments and MCP metadata, and specifically calls out the metadata fields. This is a read-only behavior implied by 'Returns,' and it discloses what the agent can expect without needing to infer hidden side effects.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately actionable.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present. The description fully covers its purpose and usage context. Since the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. For the tool's complexity, the description is complete and well-rounded.

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 fully documents the only parameter 'message' with a description ('Any message to echo back'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does mention 'received arguments' which encompasses the parameter. This meets the baseline of 3.

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 'Returns the received arguments and MCP request metadata,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning metadata fields (protocolVersion, clientInfo, clientCapabilities) and the directive to 'Use this first,' making its diagnostic role clear.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this first to inspect protocolVersion, clientInfo, and clientCapabilities.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The clear 'use this first' directive provides adequate guidance.

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