echo

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. While 'echo back' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, it doesn't explicitly state safety characteristics, performance expectations, or error conditions. The description mentions what happens ('echo back') but lacks depth about behavioral traits like idempotency or 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 perfectly concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place - no redundant information, no fluff. The formatting with headings enhances readability without adding unnecessary length.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is reasonably complete. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, and the purpose, parameter, and return behavior are all covered. For a straightforward echo tool, this provides adequate context, though it could benefit from more behavioral transparency.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. While schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description explicitly documents the single parameter ('message: The message to echo back') and its purpose. For a tool with only one parameter, this provides adequate semantic understanding, though it doesn't elaborate on constraints like message length or format.

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's purpose with 'Echo back a message' - a specific verb ('echo back') and resource ('message'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ping' or 'health_check' by focusing on message reflection rather than connectivity testing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible message-related tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools like 'ping' (which might also return messages) or 'execute_prompt_with_llm' (which processes messages). The agent receives no contextual decision-making help.

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