echo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Echo the input text back' fully reveals the tool's behavior: it returns the provided text without side effects. For such a simple tool, this is complete and explicit.

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 redundant words. It earns its place by completely and efficiently conveying the tool's function.

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's trivial complexity (one required parameter, no nested objects, and an existing output schema), the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does and what the parameter means, and it does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description identifies the sole parameter's role: 'text' is the input to be echoed. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and adds clear meaning beyond the raw type information.

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 input text back' clearly states the action (echo), the target (input text), and the result (back). It is specific and unambiguous, fully conveying the tool's purpose without relying on the name alone.

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?

There are no sibling tools or alternatives to compare against, and the tool's simplicity makes its usage self-evident. The description clearly implies when to use it (whenever you need the input returned as-is), though it does not explicitly state 'use when' or provide exclusion criteria.

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