say_hello

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 states the action without revealing return format or side effects. However, an output schema exists (not shown), which likely documents the return value. Thus, the description is minimally adequate.

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 sentence front-loads all essential information. No wasted words; every part earns its place. Perfect conciseness for the tool's simplicity.

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 (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it could be slightly improved by noting the output format (e.g., 'returns a greeting string'). Complete enough for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'name' having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but none is needed beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 'Says hello to the user' clearly states the verb and resource. It is specific and sufficient for this simple tool. Although it lacks sibling differentiation, no sibling has a similar greeting function, so clarity is adequate.

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 or not use this tool. Given the simplicity and lack of similar siblings, usage is implied. A score of 3 reflects the absence of any contextual direction while acknowledging minimal need.

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