Fifth Elephant MCP Server

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. While 'Returns' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to specify side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or the format/structure of the returned greeting.

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?

At four words, the description is efficiently compact with no extraneous information. It front-loads the action and object, making it immediately scannable.

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 trivial complexity (zero parameters, no nested objects) and lack of output schema, the minimal description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify the return value's data type, format, or content beyond the vague 'friendly greeting', leaving the agent uncertain about what exactly will be returned.

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 contains zero parameters. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, this dimension scores a 4. The description correctly implies no input is required by focusing solely on the return value.

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 uses a specific verb (Returns) and resource (greeting) that clearly communicates the tool's function. While it implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'add' tool (greeting vs. arithmetic), it does not explicitly state this differentiation or clarify what makes the greeting 'friendly'.

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, prerequisites for invocation, or conditions where it should be avoided. It merely states what the tool does without contextual usage advice.

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