greet

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 clearly communicates that the tool computes a greeting from the time of day and returns it, with no indication of side effects. It could still mention the role of the timezone parameter more explicitly, but the current time-based behavior is well disclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action, output, and deciding factor. The parenthetical examples add clarity without unnecessary words, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple, all parameters are optional and well-documented in the schema, and the description captures the main behavior. The only notable gap is that no output schema is present and the description does not explicitly state the return type, though the examples strongly imply a plain string greeting.

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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters: name, language enum, and timezone default. The description adds value for the time-based behavior but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a clear resource ('an appropriate greeting'), and the core mechanism ('based on the current time'). It also gives concrete examples of the output ('good morning, good afternoon, or good evening'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous even without sibling comparisons.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling tools exist to distinguish against. The use case is implied by the behavior description, but the tool does not actively instruct the agent on when it should be chosen.

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