slow_echo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the delay behavior and adds contextual meaning about isolating slow handlers. For a simple read-only echo tool, this is sufficient transparency; no side effects or permissions are mentioned but none are expected.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second adds rationale. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what it does, how it works, and why it exists. The behavior is completely disclosed and the schema covers inputs, making this a complete package.

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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions (text and delay_ms). The tool description confirms the role of text and delay but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 a specific action: returning the text argument after a delay. It distinguishes itself from siblings like echo and sized_echo by highlighting the delay feature. The phrase 'Separates a slow handler from a lost message' provides additional purpose.

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 a use case (simulating slow handlers) but does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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