fund.echo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Echo back a message,' which implies a simple read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, error handling, or performance characteristics. The mention of 'Example interface for scaffold' adds minimal context but is insufficient for a mutation tool (implied by 'echo' as output).

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 extremely concise with two short sentences: 'Echo back a message. Example interface for scaffold.' Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and output expectations. While the tool is basic, the description should provide more context for effective use, such as what 'echo' entails or example usage.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'message' but doesn't explain what it represents, its format, or constraints. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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's purpose: 'Echo back a message.' This is a specific verb ('echo back') and resource ('a message'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'fund.knowledge' or 'fund.stock_search', which likely have different functions, so it doesn't fully differentiate.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions it's an 'Example interface for scaffold,' which implies it might be for testing or demonstration, but this is vague and doesn't offer explicit usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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