echo_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'Echo non-empty text' but does not clarify behavior when text is empty (e.g., error or skip), nor describe side effects or return value details. This is minimal given no annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose and behavior.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. However, it could have explicitly stated the input constraint (non-empty) and clarified error handling, though the schema does not enforce non-empty.

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 only parameter (text) has a schema with type string and title, but the description adds the semantic that it will be echoed. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining the parameter's role in the echo action.

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 echoes non-empty text for verifying argument handling and tool responses. It uses a specific verb (Echo) and resource (text), and this purpose distinguishes it from siblings like add_numbers or gmail 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 implies the tool is for testing/verification but does not specify when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations. Usage context is only implied.

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