Say Hi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool will 'get contact information and connection links' which adds useful context about what happens beyond just sending a greeting. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the contact information comes in, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens to the message after sending.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains the core greeting function, the second adds valuable context about additional outcomes. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning the contact information aspect earlier.

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?

For a simple greeting tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and adds context about getting contact information, but doesn't describe the return format or what 'contact information and connection links' actually entails. With no annotations and no output schema, more detail about behavioral outcomes would be helpful.

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 description mentions 'optional personal message' which aligns with the single parameter in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter already has a clear description), the description adds minimal additional value. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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: 'Send a friendly greeting to Duyet with an optional personal message. Get contact information and connection links.' It specifies the action (send greeting), target (Duyet), and additional outcomes (get contact info/links). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_message' or 'hire_me' which might have overlapping communication functions.

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 when this greeting tool is appropriate compared to 'send_message' (which might be for general messaging) or 'hire_me' (which might be for professional inquiries). There's no indication of prerequisites, timing considerations, or exclusions for usage.

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