greet

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 only says 'Greet someone by name' without disclosing any behavioral traits—whether it returns a string, has side effects, requires permissions, or how it behaves. This is a minimal disclosure.

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?

A single, compact sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the action and object. It is concise without being under-specified to the point of confusion.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. The agent doesn't know what the tool returns, what a 'greet' action entails, or any edge cases. More detail on the expected result or side effects is needed for proper invocation.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and type with 0% coverage. The description adds meaning by clarifying the parameter is the person's name ('by name'), which helps map the parameter to its purpose. However, it doesn't add format, examples, or constraints beyond that.

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 a specific verb ('greet') and a resource ('someone by name'). It distinguishes the action but doesn't specify what 'greet' produces or entails. For a simple tool this is adequate, but it lacks detail on the expected outcome (e.g., a greeting message).

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 are no siblings or alternatives to differentiate, but the description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, any prerequisites, or context. It is self-evident only because the tool is trivial; still, no explicit usage guidance is given.

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