Greet User

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds the behavioral detail that the greeting is 'personalized' and that style is optional with a default value, which is sufficient given the high annotation coverage.

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 a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and immediately provides usage guidance. Every word is necessary and there is no redundant information.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects) and the rich annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose and usage adequately. No output schema is needed as the return is self-evident.

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 documents both parameters thoroughly (name with length constraints, style with enum and default). The description adds no new parameter information beyond what's in the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 that the tool generates a personalized greeting message, with a specific verb ('greet') and resource ('someone by name'). It also mentions the optional custom greeting style, distinguishing it from any potential siblings (though none exist).

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 explicitly says 'Use this tool when you need to greet someone by name with an optional custom greeting style,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention any alternatives, but since there are no siblings, this is adequate.

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