Two tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant gaps. Both tools have descriptions (10-20 chars range, below the 50-200 char baseline for LLM-optimized descriptions). Input schemas are present but minimal, only 'message' and 'name' parameters with type and description. No output schemas documented. No error handling guidance. No parameter constraints (enums, ranges). Tool names are generic action verbs ('echo', 'greet') but lack the verb_noun clarity pattern (e.g., 'echo_message', 'greet_user'). No evidence of idempotency hints, destructive operation warnings, or composition support. Schemas are visible in code but descriptions are too terse to guide LLM selection effectively.

• Expand tool descriptions to 50-200 characters. Example: 'echo' → 'Echoes back a message with optional uppercase transformation. Use to test message handling or transform text case.'
• Document output schemas. Specify what fields each tool returns (e.g., echo returns {message: string, transformed: boolean}, greet returns {greeting: string, timestamp: string}).
• Add error handling guidance. E.g., 'If the message is empty, the tool returns an error. Provide a non-empty message and retry.'
• Rename tools to verb_noun pattern: 'echo_message' and 'greet_user' for clarity and LLM disambiguation.
• Add parameter descriptions that explain constraints. E.g., 'uppercase: boolean flag to convert the message to uppercase (default: false)'.

Inferred effective spec: 2025-06-18+.

• Relies on Sampling (deprecated) - integrate directly with the LLM provider API