sayHello

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The tool's behavior (saying hello) is trivial and non-destructive, so the description is sufficient. It does not disclose any hidden side effects, but none are expected. A higher score is not warranted because the description does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or harmless.

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 sentence of four words: 'Say hello to someone.' It is maximally concise with zero unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequately complete. It covers the essence of the tool. However, it could be slightly more specific, such as stating that the greeting is returned or that the tool has no side effects.

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 covers the single parameter 'name' with a description. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No improvement is necessary for this simple parameter.

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 action (say hello) and the target (someone). The verb 'say hello' and resource 'someone' are specific enough for such a simple tool. No sibling tools exist, so differentiation is not needed.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, due to the tool's simplicity and lack of siblings, the usage context is implied: use it to greet a person. The description does not provide any exclusions, which is acceptable for this straightforward intent.

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