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' gives no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it's a read operation, a write operation, what permissions might be needed, what the response looks like, or any side effects. This is completely inadequate for a tool with any functionality.

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 fails to communicate essential information about the tool's purpose and behavior. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide meaningful value beyond the tool name itself.

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 a tool with one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description 'Hello tool' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what the output might be. For even a simple greeting tool, this description leaves the agent guessing about fundamental aspects of the tool's functionality.

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%, with the schema clearly documenting that the single required parameter 'name' is 'The name of the person to greet'. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even when the description provides no additional parameter semantics.

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 a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what it actually does. While it hints at greeting functionality through the word 'Hello', it doesn't clearly state the verb+resource combination (e.g., 'greets a person by name'). The description is vague about the specific action performed.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or alternatives. With no sibling tools, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to provide any usage context beyond the minimal implication from the name and single parameter.

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