Salt MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the core behavior ('Say hello') and purpose ('test that the Salt MCP server is working'), which implies a safe, read-only operation. However, it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like error conditions, response format, or whether it has side effects. For a simple tool with no annotations, this is adequate but minimal.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Say hello') followed by the usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. This is optimal for a simple tool.

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 (single optional parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, which covers the essentials for a testing tool. However, it doesn't mention what the output looks like (e.g., a greeting message), which would be helpful since there's no output schema.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'Your name.' The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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: 'Say hello' (specific verb) to 'test that the Salt MCP server is working' (resource/context). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get-component-example' or 'list-components' by focusing on a simple greeting function rather than component retrieval or documentation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings in a comparative way.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'use this to test that the Salt MCP server is working.' This gives a specific scenario (testing connectivity/functionality) that distinguishes it from the component-related sibling tools. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the implied usage is sufficiently clear for this simple tool.

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