echo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the behavior: the tool returns the exact input message unchanged. This implies no transformation, no side effects, and makes the tool's behavior predictable, though it does not discuss error behavior.

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 no filler. It states the core behavior and the use case efficiently.

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 simple echo tool with an output schema and one obvious parameter, the description covers the essential behavior and purpose. It could mention alternative sibling tools or error behavior, but those are not critical for a transport-testing utility.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indicates that 'mensagem' is the message to be echoed back, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema property name. However, it does not describe format, constraints, or edge cases, leaving some responsibility to the schema.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it returns exactly the received message. It also adds the intended purpose, testing the transport layer, which helps distinguish it from the sibling tools ping and check_host, though not explicitly.

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 gives a clear use context: 'útil para testar o transporte' indicates when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the use case is sufficiently clear.

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