Gemini CLI MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Echo' implies a simple return operation but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it has side effects, what authentication might be needed, or any rate limits. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the minimal implication of the word 'echo'.

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 single word 'Echo' is extremely concise but borders on under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it uses minimal words, it fails to provide meaningful information that would help an AI agent understand and use the tool effectively.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description 'Echo' is insufficiently complete. While the tool appears simple with only one optional parameter, the description doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or provide any context about its purpose within the server alongside tools like 'ask-gemini' and 'fetch-chunk'.

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?

With 0 required parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The single optional parameter 'prompt' is fully documented in the schema with type, default value, and description. The tool description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since the schema already provides complete coverage for this simple tool.

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' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ping' without clarifying what the tool actually does. While 'echo' suggests returning input, it doesn't specify what resource or operation is involved, nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like 'ask-gemini' or 'fetch-chunk'.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools like 'ask-gemini' for AI responses or 'fetch-chunk' for data retrieval.

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