echo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Echo back the input message' clearly conveys the operation and its lack of side effects in this trivial case, and 'Hello-world scaffold' sets expectations of simplicity.

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?

Two short sentences, no wasted words. The core behavior is front-loaded and the scaffold context is provided in a single additional clause.

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?

For a one-parameter echo tool with no output schema and no sibling tools, the description is fully sufficient. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool based on the provided information alone.

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%: the message parameter is already described as 'Text to echo back.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are needed given the schema already fully documents the only parameter.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Echo back the input message.' It is immediately clear what the tool does and what data it operates on. The 'Hello-world scaffold' phrase adds useful context about its role.

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 this is a test/demo scaffold for the hsh-erp MCP server, which suggests when it might be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it, though no siblings exist to differentiate from.

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