echo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply restates the verb 'echo' without explaining side effects, return format, or confirming that the operation is read-only and side-effect free. The added behavioral context is minimal.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately succinct for the simplicity of the tool.

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 trivial tool with one string parameter, the description is largely complete: it states the operation and the input. However, it does not explicitly mention the return value or confirm the absence of side effects, which would enhance completeness.

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 defines one required parameter 'message' with no description, and the tool description only refers to 'the provided message' without adding any additional meaning, constraints, or examples. The description fails to compensate for the 0% schema description 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 uses the specific verb 'Echo back' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the provided message.' It is unambiguous and exactly describes the action, and since there are no sibling tools, no differentiation is needed.

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 intended usage is easily inferred from the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It merely implies usage rather than stating it directly.

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