hello_tool

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. 'Hello tool' reveals nothing about whether this is a read/write operation, what permissions might be required, what side effects occur, or what the response format looks like. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the minimal implication from the name.

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?

While technically concise with only two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't contain enough information to be useful, and the single phrase doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful guidance to an AI agent.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more complete context about what this tool does and what to expect. A single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage could get by with minimal description, but 'Hello tool' fails to explain the basic purpose and behavior adequately for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'name' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 'Hello tool' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what it does. It doesn't provide a clear verb+resource combination or explain the actual function. While the name suggests greeting functionality, the description fails to articulate this 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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool, what context it's appropriate for, or any prerequisites. There are no sibling tools mentioned, but even basic usage context is completely missing from the description text.

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