hello-world

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Say hello to the user' suggests a read-only or informational action, but it doesn't specify if this involves side effects (e.g., logging, notifications), authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise at four words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Say hello'), making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every word earns its place by directly contributing to the tool's purpose.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'say hello' results in (e.g., a message, a log entry), any behavioral traits, or usage context. While the tool is straightforward, the description lacks details needed for full agent understanding without relying on inference.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. With schema description coverage at 100%, the schema already documents the 'name' parameter as 'The name of the user'. Since the description doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints, it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but minimal value addition.

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 'Say hello to the user' states a clear action (say hello) and target (the user), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'say hello' entails (e.g., is it a greeting message, a notification, or something else?), and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get-mcp-docs', though the distinction is implied by context.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for greeting users, but there's no mention of when-not-to-use scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to the sibling tool 'get-mcp-docs'. Without such context, the agent must infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.

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