hello-world

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. 'Say hello to the user' implies a simple output operation, but it doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it has side effects, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 at just four words ('Say hello to the user'), front-loaded with the core purpose. There's zero wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a greeting string), any constraints on the 'name' parameter, or behavioral context. While the tool is basic, the description lacks sufficient detail for an agent to fully understand its operation beyond the minimal schema.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'The name of the user'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this schema information, such as explaining how the name is used in the greeting. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Say hello to the user' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('say hello') and target ('to the user'). It's not tautological with the name 'hello-world', but it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get-mcp-docs', which serves a completely different purpose.

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. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparison with the sibling tool 'get-mcp-docs'. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate usage scenarios.

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