greet

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. It states the tool returns a greeting but doesn't elaborate on any behavioral traits, such as error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this minimal description is insufficient to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and clear, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information concisely.

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 low complexity (simple greeting function), high schema coverage (100%), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose and inputs, though it lacks behavioral details. For this context, it provides enough information for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively, but not exhaustively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema fully documents both parameters ('name' and 'language') with descriptions and an enum for 'language'. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage notes. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 the tool's purpose: it takes a name and language as input and returns a greeting. It specifies the verb ('returns a greeting') and resources ('name and language'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculator' or 'get-weather', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to choose 'greet' over other tools like 'time' or 'geocode'. This lack of usage context leaves the agent without direction on appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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