Say hello

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool supports multiple languages and requires a person's name, which is useful. However, it does not describe output format, potential side effects, or any limitations/error behaviors—though as a greeting tool, the behavioral surface is small. A score of 3 is appropriate because the description covers core behavior but not edge details.

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?

Three sentences, all essential. First sentence defines action, second establishes usage context, third explains param. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 with 2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and clarifies parameters. Minor gap: does not list accepted language codes or the greeting format, but the default 'en' is in schema. Adequate for making a correct call.

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 0%: the schema provides only field names and types, with no descriptions. The tool description compensates by explaining that 'name' is the person to greet and 'language' accepts an ISO 639-1 code. It doesn't document possible values for language beyond default 'en', but it gives enough meaning to infer usage. Since the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, a 4 is justified.

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 and resource: 'Greets a person by name.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (echo, get_server_time, add) by focusing on greeting functionality. The mention of language support via ISO 639-1 adds specificity.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this whenever the user asks to greet, welcome, or say hello to someone.' This provides clear contextual guidance and implicitly contrasts with sibling tools that serve different purposes.

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