Six tools with complete schemas and descriptions, but quality is uneven. All tools have input schemas with typed parameters and descriptions (baseline met). However, descriptions are terse (avg ~60 chars, well below the 194-char production baseline), lack context on WHEN to use each tool, and omit dependency hints. The 'drip' tool has a strong description explaining its purpose; others are minimal. No tool descriptions mention state mutations or side effects. Parameter descriptions are present but sparse. No output schemas documented. Error handling is absent, tools return raw values with no recovery guidance. Naming is clear and verb-forward (echo, add, drip, whoami, remember, recall), but the stateful tools (remember/recall) lack documentation of their shared state semantics.

• Expand tool descriptions to 100-200 chars. Include WHEN to use each tool and what it enables. E.g., 'echo: Verify server connectivity and message round-trip latency. Use to test if the backend is responsive before calling stateful tools.'
• Document output schemas explicitly. Add a 'Returns' section to each tool docstring specifying field names, types, and meanings. E.g., 'Returns: {"pid": int, "timestamp": str (ISO 8601)}'.
• Add constraint documentation to parameters. E.g., 'text (string, 1-10000 chars): The message to echo. Non-printable characters are stripped.'
• For stateful tools, document shared state semantics in descriptions. E.g., 'remember: Store a key-value pair in this process's memory. Shared across all clients if per_client_process=false; isolated if true.'
• Implement error handling with recovery guidance. E.g., if 'recall' finds no key, return {"value": null, "message": "Key not found. Call remember() first to store a value."} instead of an empty string.

Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.

• Relies on Logging (deprecated) - log to stderr or use OpenTelemetry