echo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fully discloses the behavior: simply returning the input text. There are no side effects, destructive actions, or complexities to disclose. The description is transparent and complete for this trivial operation.

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 five words, perfectly sized for a tool of this simplicity. Every word contributes to meaning, and there is zero redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded and immediately clear.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the core function but does not explicitly state the return format or edge-case handling (e.g., empty text). Given the simplicity, these omissions are minor and the description is sufficient.

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 one parameter 'text' with no description (0% coverage). The description 'Echo back the text' implies that the 'text' parameter is what gets echoed back, adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. It clarifies the parameter's purpose, though it does not explicitly state 'the text parameter will be returned as-is'.

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 back the text' uses a specific verb (echo) and resource (text), clearly indicating the tool's function. There are no sibling tools, so differentiation is unnecessary, but the description is unambiguous and exact.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description: this tool is used to echo back text. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, context, or exclusions. Since no alternatives exist, the implied usage is acceptable but not strongly stated.

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